Europe’s Freedom of Speech Fail
From the article.
Even historic defenders of speech like Denmark and the United Kingdom are starting to choose "social harmony" over free expression.
Thoughts?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Europe’s Freedom of Speech Fail
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Europe’s Freedom of Speech Fail
From the article.
Even historic defenders of speech like Denmark and the United Kingdom are starting to choose "social harmony" over free expression.
Thoughts?
Not European or British. I'm in the USA. I am not a genius but am required to have opinions, unfortunately. I think the EU is overly managed, and I think the Europeans are smug about their socialism which has only been around for about forty years -- not long enough to prove itself stable. I like their enthusiasm and good will. I like that they are trying to make socialism work, but no system is stainless steel. They all rust and have to be stripped and repainted -- so far. It is time for Europeans to replace their current federation with one that is more directly representative and to re-empower their states to some degree. The same goes for the USA. We are too centralized, and the country is starting to act like a self employed jet ski. I think the EU should keep trying, but it should decentralize for a while. Shift the power. Its not enough to rotate the presidency and so forth. They need to destabilize the power. Otherwise they can expect to keep losing more rights.
From the article, there is a link to the World Press Freedom Index: 2017 World Press Freedom Index | Reporters Without Borders
Frankly, I'm more surprised that the US ranked so poorly compared to many European countries.
This is really, really scary stuff. Free speech is the most important liberty in a healthy society. All of the other liberties depend on free speech. I really do fear for Europe, and I think Canada is not far behind them, and then they will come for the US.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
***mod edit***
Except not a single country in Europe tries that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Given how things have been the last couple of years, I am not at all surprised. The whole concept of 'fake news' is one that is used to keep information om the press. The current administration has repeatedly attacked the press. So is it really a surprise a group devoted to press freedom downgrades the US?
Search
Two economic news sources indicate otherwise. Forbes Magazine, Boomberg say Europe is socialist or tends to be socialist in its policies. Answers on Quora fall into a spectrum around 'Not truly socialist'; but they are relatively socialist.
European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It
Europe Sticks With Socialism
https://www.quora.com/Is-Europe-socialist
Last edited by a moderator:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Yes it is fairly known that Americans in general have no concept as to what Socialism means.
You don't have to prove a point.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
I think free speech is a more complex issue than especially Americans consider. Do you ever consider for example that free speech has consequences? We guaranteed free speech because of the oppressive theocracies we had just come from, but democracy is always an ongoing experiment. Democracy can change based on the experiment results.
Look at some of the things 'free speech' brought about in the 20th century alone. That isn't even talking today. Would you say the free speech aspect of modern democracy has proved conducive to human benefit overall? I wouldn't. Therefore, I'd argue this aspect of the democratic experiment is a failure.
No one is arguing for overbearing censorship. No one reasonable. However, it has to be recognized that speech has consequences. The Nazis were arguably a consequence of free speech. Certainly, the Charlottesville tragedy that cost a young girl her life was.
Can we demonstrate that free speech as a given is really good?
wow....very nice...
Well...how could they? In a technocratic EU ruled by the financial élites, it's impossible to put real socialism into practice. But nobody can deny that the Nordic model in Scandinavia works perfectly, or that the IRI formula in Italy used to work perfectly.
Btw...when was the last time there was a SPD Kanzler in Germany? 2005? I wonder why.
Last edited:
Fine with me. I'd rather be in Europe than in stupid America where we let open neo-Nazis march down the street and carry semi-autos.
Like so many things, "socialism" has many definitions and is implemented to many different degrees. We could argue that there are socialist countries in Europe. We could argue that the US is socialist. Or we could argue that neither case is true, depending on the flavor of socialism you're discussing.
Please take a stab at making that argument - I think you're gonna have a hard time.
Seriously, what flavor of censorship are you arguing for.
And yes of course, free speech has consequences. But the lack of free speech has far worse consequences.
I see that you've been reading....
How To Win Friends & Influence People
Last edited by a moderator:
Free speech can be good when it's not accompanied by violence. The Nazis used violence and had gangs of thugs all over the place. That's not a consequence of free speech, but a consequence of allowing armed paramilitary groups free rein throughout the country. There were certainly other factors involved, but I don't think free speech, in and of itself, is the problem.
However, I also don't believe that free speech is a be-all and end-all either. It seems to me that free speech is favored because it allows people to discuss their issues and problems freely, so that they can peacefully compromise and negotiate with others. It's politics that's violent, not free speech. I think the idea is that free speech is supposed to help reduce violence.
Regarding the Nazis and Charlottesville, an interesting parallel can be drawn. Part of the Nazi rise to power can be attributed to the generations of malignant nationalism which had been prevalent in Germany. It wasn't so much a matter of "free speech" as much what whole generations had been raised and taught to believe. Hitler was able to appeal to that sentiment. A lot of Germans were pining for the old order under the Kaiser, and they weren't really used to democracy.
Likewise, back in the Old South, "free speech" didn't really exist, particularly if one was advocating the abolition of slavery. One wouldn't even be safe in a Northern state, as Elijah Lovejoy found out. Even after the Civil War, whole generations were raised with the idea of a noble "lost cause" in a highly-segregated, deeply racist culture - which didn't just pervade in the South, but all over the country. It took a long time before enough people could utilize their right to free speech to even speak out against it.
The exercise of free speech in the open marketplace of ideas helped to shift public opinion against the malignant racist ideas of the past. But because of the strong hold it has had over American political thought, it still seems to have some holdovers or relics from previous eras. It's not so much a matter of free speech as much as it might be "old speech" from an earlier era when such speech was far more widely accepted (while dissenting speech was not).
So, it's kind of complicated when you're looking at free speech, in and of itself. Charlottesville was the kind of tragedy which brings up bitter memories and opens up old wounds, which seems to go beyond free speech.
And a valid question is asked: Why should Nazis be given free speech when they would be the first ones to deny freedom of speech to everyone else? Likewise, there were civil rights activists in many states who were attempting to exercise their right to free speech, only to get harassed, beaten, and murdered. Civil rights marchers were met with police dogs, fire hoses, and billy clubs, not to mention the church burnings and bombings that took place. They didn't really honor the protesters' right to free speech back in those days, so now that public opinion has shifted and the tables have turned against the "old guard," there are those who aren't all that enthusiastic about honoring their right to free speech.
But then there are those who fiercely believe in free speech and the other principles of freedom outlined in the Constitution. Some of it may be due to earlier memories when they felt their own free speech rights were threatened. Such as those who endured the McCarthy era, along with Hoover, Nixon, et al. But they pushed for and asserted their rights, so it became a matter of principle later on that free speech rights would be honored, even to those whose ideas are abhorrent.
It's also rooted in the principle that, in a truly open marketplace of ideas, the public will ultimately reject malignant or evil ideas in favor of good and noble causes. But the public can also get hoodwinked. But limiting free speech wouldn't necessarily prevent politicians from lying.
But the British government de facto suppresses freedom of speech by jailing people and banning foreigners.
I dare not imagine how many Italian journalists would be jailed according to "British parameters".
* Penal Code, art 724: a fine of 309€ (at most) is applied to whoever publicly (during a TV show...for example) insults the deity with a vulgar expression. For example I can say that God/Jesus, or Shiva, or Buddha are gay because gay is neither an insult nor a vulgar word.
This law doesn't apply to internet comments
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
It's not even remotely my fault that Americans apparently have a distinct problem to process basic information when it comes to political ideologies.
I'd advise to read about Socialism on Wikipedia but perhaps truth would trigger quite a lot of them.
Repeat after me my American friend: Not a single country in Europe tries to adopt Socialism.
It's not difficult at all. Come on you can do it.
Except it doesn't.
But since you relied on Scandinavia, Norway is not part of the evil EU. Yet they are in Scandinavia.
Why aren't they trying to adopt Socialism? I thought Europeans are so keen about it.
The IRI? Let me guess the Italian Fascists were Socialists too.
Everyone's a Socialist on the Crazy people Continent.
Oh please enlighten me.
Name one.
You mean Socialism or American """""""""""SOCIALISM"""""""""""?
Ever had that feeling when you read something really stupid that you simply can't let it stand?
I had that.
Surprisingly I often get that when Americans go on about how things are outside of the US.
It's really weird because Canadians or Mexicans aren't like that.
More often than you'd suspect.
Nordic model - Wikipedia
The Nordic model is the purest form of European Socialism, and I guess it's only applicable in Scandinavian countries, which have a high GDP and a tiny population...and besides public employees make up 1/3 of the workforce.
We Italians had a great socialist statesman in the 80s, Craxi, whose policies made the Italian GDP rise constantly, and the IRI saved many enterprises. After the Treaty of Maastricht, the Center-Left" promoted privatizations of strategical sectors of economy. Through the Andreatta-Van Miert agreement Italy was forced by the EU to dismantle the IRI, to undersell its assets, and the socialist party was disbanded.
I don't know...but the SPD is an excellent party and I can think that die Bundeskanzlerin is there because she's just a pawn of EU technocrats.
Last edited: