Europe’s Freedom of Speech Fail

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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?

For a given value of "free expression", I guess. Free expression isn't an absolute right anywhere. The Europeans have just decided to draw the line slightly to the side of where it's drawn in the US..

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Yep, that's the theory all right

Spoiler: Picture supplied without further commentary

 

[Stanyon]

Some interesting articles:

Expert: Islam taking over, Europe soon to be unrecognizable

Europe is Threatened by a Transformation to the Point of Being of Unrecognizable | Gates of Vienna

* 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

But don't say Allah is gay, they might kick you out for life because some overly sensitive homophobic people might get violent.

 

[icehorse]

You mean Socialism or American """""""""""SOCIALISM"""""""""""?

I suspect we both know the continuum on which the various flavors of "socialism" rest, but I think that in any given conversation, it's still useful to be clear about which flavor is under discussion.

 

[Stevicus]

Yep, that's the theory all right

Spoiler: Picture supplied without further commentary

Well, it doesn't always work all the time. We'll see how it goes at the next election.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, it doesn't always work all the time. We'll see how it goes at the next election.

Assuming you have one during the State Of Emergency that gets declared after the Reichst... I mean... Capitol terrorist arson attack

 

[Stanyon]

Assuming you have one during the State Of Emergency that gets declared after the Reichst... I mean... Capitol terrorist arson attack

The whole Trump=Hitler thing again, imagine that.

 

[Estro Felino]

But don't say Allah is gay, they might kick you out for life because some overly sensitive homophobic people might get violent.

Actually in my country, unlike UK, journalists, politicians, TV hosts totally loosen up...
I guess we haven't had any terrorist attack yet 'cause nobody understands Italian....

 

[Stanyon]

Actually in my country, unlike UK, journalists, politicians, TV hosts totally loosen up...pretty heavy stuff...LOL
I guess we haven't had any terrorist attack yet 'cause nobody understands Italian....

From the different sources I have read it seems the right is doing pretty well in Italy right now, what do you see?

"in Benevento a nut-tree stands"
-Andras

 

[Stevicus]

Assuming you have one during the State Of Emergency that gets declared after the Reichst... I mean... Capitol terrorist arson attack

Well, as I also said, sometimes the public gets hoodwinked.

In the context of restricting free speech, consider if someone says "I'm a nice guy. I believe in freedom and only want to make America great. Trust me." You can't really restrict someone from saying it, since it seems pretty innocent when taken literally.

Sure, a government can ban overt hate speech or those who make it so obvious. But if they tone down their rhetoric, use code words, stay within certain parameters, try to come across as decent, patriotic citizens - it can make it a bit more dicey to recognize.

I'm pretty sure we'll have another election. Unlike Germany in the 1930s, we have more checks and balances in place to prevent that kind of total government takeover and transformation. Even if there's a state of emergency. Even during the Civil War and WW2, we still had elections.

 

[Stevicus]

But don't say Allah is gay, they might kick you out for life because some overly sensitive homophobic people might get violent.

I always thought that calling someone or something "gay" was a pretty weak put down anyway.

Reminds me of the character of Ajax in "The Warriors."

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, as I also said, sometimes the public gets hoodwinked.

In the context of restricting free speech, consider if someone says "I'm a nice guy. I believe in freedom and only want to make America great. Trust me." You can't really restrict someone from saying it, since it seems pretty innocent when taken literally.

Sure, a government can ban overt hate speech or those who make it so obvious. But if they tone down their rhetoric, use code words, stay within certain parameters, try to come across as decent, patriotic citizens - it can make it a bit more dicey to recognize.

I'm pretty sure we'll have another election. Unlike Germany in the 1930s, we have more checks and balances in place to prevent that kind of total government takeover and transformation. Even if there's a state of emergency. Even during the Civil War and WW2, we still had elections.

I'm sure there will be an election in 2020. Legitimate and fair? Well... here's hoping

As for banning speech, I'm against censorship, and I believe the best way to counter a bad idea is to argue against it, not stop it being spoken about. That said, the recent prevalence of people believing some horrible and absurd things in the face of all evidence, based on nothing more than that they really, really want it to be true, has left me very concerned. I don't know how to counter willful ignorance, but I don't think banning speech is likely to help much, and might even make things worse.

 

[Estro Felino]

For a given value of "free expression", I guess. Free expression isn't an absolute right anywhere. The Europeans have just decided to draw the line slightly to the side of where it's drawn in the US..

Is this speech beyond the line...by chance?

The 5 seconds I watched seemed fine. What's your point? Please use words, rather than uncommented youtube clips.

You somehow implied that freedom of speech isn't an absolute value...can you be more specific?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Is this speech beyond the line...by chance?

The 5 seconds I watched seemed fine. What's your point? Please use words, rather than uncommented youtube clips.

 

[Flankerl]

Nordic model - Wikipedia
The Nordic model is the purest form of European Socialism

Its literally Social Democracy. You even link to Social Democracy.

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.

So you are Italian and don't know the difference between Socialism and Social Democracy.
Hm. North or South Italy?

I don't know...but the SPD is an excellent party

When it isn't screwing over its electorate... oh wait that's why they have under 20% in all polls.

and I can think that die Bundeskanzlerin is there because she's just a pawn of EU technocrats.

Or perhaps and I am just guessing here, she's Chancellor because her party got the most votes and could form the Government to elect her as Chancellor.

But perhaps its the fault of the (((EU technocrats))).

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There were certainly other factors involved, but I don't think free speech, in and of itself, is the problem.

How did the ideas get circulated? It all goes back to the idea they could say and express any idea they wanted.

It's politics that's violent, not free speech. I think the idea is that free speech is supposed to help reduce violence.

Do you think politics and speech are able to be divided? Perhaps in one direction, but I'd argue: not the other. Speech can't really be separated from politics.

It wasn't so much a matter of "free speech" as much what whole generations had been raised and taught to believe.

How were they taught it? Again- speech was certainly part of the equation.

Hitler was able to appeal to that sentiment.

Yes, with speeches...

Charlottesville was the kind of tragedy which brings up bitter memories and opens up old wounds, which seems to go beyond free speech.

Let's talk about what happened in Charlottesville itself. What got the whole fiasco started?

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?

Yes, this is actually a dilemma in social theory. It's a valid one. There really can be no universal tolerance, or it also means tolerating intolerance. Pretending it's otherwise is part of the problem.

 

[Stevicus]

How did the ideas get circulated? It all goes back to the idea they could say and express any idea they wanted.

The ideas got circulated because the government in those jurisdictions wanted those ideas circulated. They weren't allowed to express any idea they wanted; that's the whole point. They were only allowed to express viewpoints which were propagated and approved from the very top. Those who opposed such ideas (racism, nationalism, patriotism) were the ones facing persecution, harassment, and restrictions.

Do you think politics and speech are able to be divided? Perhaps in one direction, but I'd argue: not the other. Speech can't really be separated from politics.

I don't think they're divided. My only point is that if people are able to discuss their political differences freely, openly, and without violence - that would be a more progressive form of government. If certain ideas or concepts have to be banned or restricted from open discussion out of fear that they could spread or become more dangerous - that's a symptom of a much deeper problem.

How were they taught it? Again- speech was certainly part of the equation.

But it wasn't free speech, since they had very little of it.


Consider the rise of Christianity in Europe. It didn't become as widespread and powerful due to free speech. In fact, it was just the opposite, as they started out few in number and were generally persecuted by state authorities. After a time, Christianity grew in numbers and eventually turned the tide so that they were the ones dictating policy and persecuting anyone who spoke against Christianity. It wasn't free speech that caused it all, but mainly the lack of free speech. The power of the Church didn't start to become eclipsed until the invention of the printing press - a pivotal and monumental event in the history of free speech.

Yes, with speeches...

If he made the exact same speeches in America, he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere, since most Americans can't speak German and would not have understood what he was saying. (You might think that's a silly and obvious point to make, but if you can see what I'm getting at, it really isn't all that silly or obvious.)


In any case, there were those who tried to stop him. It wasn't because of speeches that turned the Germans into fanatics; it runs deeper than that.

Let's talk about what happened in Charlottesville itself. What got the whole fiasco started?

I guess you could say the whole fiasco got started when European settlers arrived on this continent in the 16th/17th centuries with the idea of expanding territory and making more money. The concept of "free speech" was really in its infancy at that point, so you can't really blame free speech for setting those events in motion. That was more a matter of politics, economics, and greed. As a concept, free speech would be later developed into what would be subsequently advocated by America's Founders.


A lot of intervening history I won't go over – related to our history of expansionism, slavery, racism, imperialism, and so on. I don't think you could say that any of that was directly caused by free speech, and many of those who spoke out against it were going against the grain. They needed freedom of speech in order to voice their dissent, which eventually led to growing opposition to those policies and their eventual reversal. Part of this was manifested in the outbreak of the Civil War, although the war itself was not about free speech.


But fast forward to Charlottesville itself. First, one needs to look at the "Lost Cause" version of Civil War history. The interesting thing about the Lost Cause is that it de-emphasized slavery and focused more on the states' rights arguments regarding the Secession.


Slavery itself was indefensible. Even with free speech, no one in the Postbellum era could have ever hoped to defend or advocate for slavery, so they didn't even try. Instead, they tried to make it appear that the South was fighting for other more noble reasons which had very little to do with slavery. The Northerners went along with this, since it didn't directly contradict their emphasis on preserving the Union. Generals like Robert E. Lee were revered by both sides, and the idea that Lee was personally against slavery, was against secession, but fought for his home state of Virginia – that idea was what became prevalent.


Northern leaders were more interested in reunification and reconciliation, so they tolerated Confederate monuments and open displays of the Confederate flag. They also abruptly ended Reconstruction (after getting their spoils) and went along with the idea of "Separate But Equal." The North had their own reasons for going along with these racist policies, and they were also supporting similar policies in the West as they were resettling and forcing Native American tribes to live on "reservations."


This wasn't just a matter of free speech, but it was the law of the land, both in the North and the South. In later years, Civil War history would be treated more like an unfortunate family squabble. It would never be forgotten, but the main emphasis was on forgiveness and reconciliation. That's why Civil War history was treated as it was, why whole generations were given a skewed version of it, and that's why there have been Confederate monuments and prominent displays of the Confederate flag at various times/places in our history since the Civil War.


My point in all of this is to say that this was not a matter of "free speech" as much as it was "manufactured speech" tolerated, sanctioned, and even propagated by the highest levels of power within the United States, both in the public and private sector – and even echoed in the sentiments of other countries. And the actual "speech" itself might not be the issue, especially if it's constructed dishonestly or deceptively.


For example, the phrase "separate but equal," when taken literally just at face value – it doesn't overtly appear to be seditious or any kind of obvious hate speech. We only know what we know about it now because we know the history and all the damage that this deceptive and manipulative concept brought about. It's not the "speech" that did it. The "speech" was just a façade meant to hide something far more evil and insidious. Among other things, those were the kind of lies and deceptions the Civil Rights Movement meant to expose.


In more recent decades, there have been shifts in public opinion towards our perceptions of the Civil War, with a particular emphasis on displays of the Confederate flag and Confederate battle monuments. That was the focal point of what happened at Charlottesville last year. There was ostensibly a proposal to remove some Confederate battle monuments from a local park, and this is what led to the initial protest from the far-right individuals in question.


I don't necessarily disagree with removing Confederate monuments – as the local jurisdictions have every right and justification for doing so. But perhaps they should have also considered the overall political dynamic, anticipated what might happen, and come up with a strategy and contingency plans ahead of time. They did do some of that. At least as far as covering the legalities, making sure everyone's free speech rights were guaranteed, yet planning to have enough police there to keep order. Apparently, it wasn't sufficient.


What could they have done differently? You might argue that if they should not have allowed the protest in the first place. This is where it can get rather dicey. My understanding is that some of the individuals who organized the protest were known to be far-right extremists, racists, white nationalists, alt-right – whatever they might call themselves these days. I can see where it could be argued that a known history of troublemaking, hate-mongering, sedition – that might be cause for limiting their speech. This might even be true, regardless of what their speech might be about. It can be a speech about gardening or raising rabbits, yet people might still be wary just the same.


In this case, their speech was ostensibly just about saving a statue in a park and about preserving Civil War history. But because of who they were and their political history, many people didn't believe that it was just about saving a statue in a park. They derived and identified a deeper, more insidious and hateful motive far beyond simply saving a statue.


So, when you ask what happened at Charlottesville and the horrible tragedy that ensued, I don't really believe it was over a speech, or a statue, or a speech about a statue. It likely runs much deeper than surface level "speech." In any case, even if they had banned the protest, that wouldn't have necessarily prevented from causing trouble anyway. There still could have been violence either way.


The bottom line is, no matter if free speech is allowed or if some speech is restricted, the same political views and ideas are still there. It won't prevent political violence if it somehow ever comes to pass.

Yes, this is actually a dilemma in social theory. It's a valid one. There really can be no universal tolerance, or it also means tolerating intolerance. Pretending it's otherwise is part of the problem.

It's not so much a matter of tolerating intolerance, but also a matter of proving that society has matured to the point where we tolerate people saying outlandish things in full confidence that their ideas will be rejected by the vast majority of the body politic.


Both on the far-left and far-right, there have been legal political parties and similar entities operating for decades, yet hardly anyone ever votes for any of these parties. They have free speech, but it's not really getting them anywhere. The public has made its choice.