|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2017 04:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. How is denying what Nazis did suddenly legitimizing it? According to what you've said, she claims that the Holocaust never happened. How are you making the jump to accusing her of claiming that the Holocaust was a good thing and should be repeated?
Because that's the point of denying it. You can go visit Auschwitz now and look at the remains or talk to people who have their prison numbers carved into their skin. What do you think, this is a epistemological debate? People who deny known genocides do so for one reason, they want to get rid of the history of the crimes against the victims.
Do you think holocaust denial is equally spread across the political spectrum?
|
On November 30 2017 01:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower. Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion. I disagree with your base meaning of freedom, as well as all the "freedoms" you listed above. Freedom is a singular entity, it can only have a single definition. Everything else is a false god. Since freedom is a physically given trait - I can always do what I physically can - the only question is always, how do you make it so that the freedom of one person does not (negatively) interfere with the freedom of another person. Which is the question of giving consent (in a broad sense - directly, or by consenting to a law or consenting to a process that creates a law). If someone undermines that consent, for example by shouting Nazi propaganda in my proximity, then we have to make the decision whether them violating my freedom is a bigger loss of freedom, than those who call themselves society compromising their freedom, when they punish that Nazi-shouter for that. Given the experience with the Nazi government and its frontal attack on freedom I don't see any evidence under which a person subscribing to Hitler's ideology is not a grave and dangerous violation of freedom of at the very least those, who would be killed by such a government.
Nope. Not even close. Freedom properly defined is as I gave the definition. It isn’t narrowly those freedoms that bring you in direct interference. It’s centered on the individual, as the dictionary would tell you “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” Governments restrict freedoms, societal norms or maladies restrict freedoms, and the list goes on.
|
On November 30 2017 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower. Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion. Ehm, holocaust denial is a crime in 16 European countries. So yes, the government can jail you for saying "The holocaust is a lie".
The question was whether free speech is, as Artisreal implied, not generally inclusive of lies or possessing limitations within the term itself. I don’t care what countries think are useful restrictions on free speech rights. I care that it’s understood to be legal treatment and restriction of free speech in pursuit of other societal goals.
|
On November 30 2017 02:37 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public. Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies. I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it. You can compare countries regarding their laws of freedom of speech and say country A restricts freedom of speech more then country B. This however is not an idicator for anything else. There is neither a consensus that more freedom is automatically better nor should the USA be considered more free then Germany because you are allowed to say that the holocaust is fake news by the jewish mainstream media. Every country has to find a balance between individual freedoms and we simply say that the freedom to deny history is less important then the dignity of those that survived this history.
Thank you for your agreement.
|
On November 30 2017 04:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. How is denying what Nazis did suddenly legitimizing it? According to what you've said, she claims that the Holocaust never happened. How are you making the jump to accusing her of claiming that the Holocaust was a good thing and should be repeated?
You don't just deny the Holocaust. Especially not when your husband was in the SS and you say the gas couldn't kill people. You downplay it immensely and that has one goal only to legitimises it.
Once it's legitimised you can carry on with the killings and a good conscience.
This mightn't be sufficient for you, but to me reading about her demeanour in public it's obvious that she'd day they should do it the same way again because there was no killings.
|
On November 30 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 30 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public. Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies. I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it. You can compare countries regarding their laws of freedom of speech and say country A restricts freedom of speech more then country B. This however is not an idicator for anything else. There is neither a consensus that more freedom is automatically better nor should the USA be considered more free then Germany because you are allowed to say that the holocaust is fake news by the jewish mainstream media. Every country has to find a balance between individual freedoms and we simply say that the freedom to deny history is less important then the dignity of those that survived this history. Thank you for your agreement.
I still disagree that this can be called freedom of speech if the opinion expressed is infringing on other people's life in a sense that it violated the basic human rights.
That's just madness.
|
I have no idea about the proportions, but some of the holocaust deniers seem to believe that German war crimes were vastly exaggerated or even made up by the winning side in order to make the nazis look worse than they really were.
|
On November 30 2017 05:05 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 30 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public. Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies. I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it. You can compare countries regarding their laws of freedom of speech and say country A restricts freedom of speech more then country B. This however is not an idicator for anything else. There is neither a consensus that more freedom is automatically better nor should the USA be considered more free then Germany because you are allowed to say that the holocaust is fake news by the jewish mainstream media. Every country has to find a balance between individual freedoms and we simply say that the freedom to deny history is less important then the dignity of those that survived this history. Thank you for your agreement. I still disagree that this can be called freedom of speech if the opinion expressed is infringing on other people's life in a sense that it violated the basic human rights. That's just madness.
Haha. You’re talking about balancing freedom of speech against other concerns in society. It doesn’t change the meaning of the term. Be a little more free to infringe on the freedom of speech without feeling bad.
|
On November 30 2017 05:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 05:05 Artisreal wrote:On November 30 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 30 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public. Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies. I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it. You can compare countries regarding their laws of freedom of speech and say country A restricts freedom of speech more then country B. This however is not an idicator for anything else. There is neither a consensus that more freedom is automatically better nor should the USA be considered more free then Germany because you are allowed to say that the holocaust is fake news by the jewish mainstream media. Every country has to find a balance between individual freedoms and we simply say that the freedom to deny history is less important then the dignity of those that survived this history. Thank you for your agreement. I still disagree that this can be called freedom of speech if the opinion expressed is infringing on other people's life in a sense that it violated the basic human rights. That's just madness. Haha. You’re talking about balancing freedom of speech against other concerns in society. It doesn’t change the meaning of the term. Be a little more free to infringe on the freedom of speech without feeling bad.
This is a little bit disingenuous. The definition of 'free' is a little more than a technicality. It's commonly used as free as in 'freedom', not as in 'free beer'. People attach value to the label, especially in the American discourse.
Same with the word 'censorship'. You can use it in a technical sense, but this is hardly ever the case in the 'free speech' debate.
|
On November 30 2017 05:31 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 05:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 05:05 Artisreal wrote:On November 30 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:37 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 30 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:50 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 29 2017 08:29 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 06:42 Artisreal wrote:On a rather unrelated note for our visitors from across the Atlantic: German " Nazi grandma" (Ursula Haverbeck) sentenced to jail for the umpteenth time. So yes, free speech has its limits if it is pure, hateful lying and/or denial.
Haverbeck, from the German town of Vlotho near Bielefeld, has been sentenced for similar charges on five other occasions. The most recent, in October, saw her sentenced to six months in prison by a district court in Berlin for incitement of racial hatred after she claimed at a public event that the gas chambers and Auschwitz concentration camp "were not real."
In August she was handed a two-year sentence by a regional court in Lower Saxony.
Haverbeck has appealed the rulings passed down against her and proceedings in each other case remains ongoing. Haverbeck claims she has been merely been repeating an opinion.
This Tuesday's appeal verdict is not final, either. Haverbeck's lawyers intend to take the case to the Higher Regional Court in the town of Hamm, their last chance to challenge the sentence.
Germany doesn’t have the same free speech protections codified in law that, say, the USA does. That’s not about “free speech has its limits if”; it’s about how different nations approach what freedoms are reserved to the individual in society. What? That is exactly the point he is making. Freedom is not an absolute term. It is interpreted by society and societies decide for themselves how they want to implement it. The only absolute freedom is not to be found in the USA but in a lawless society without any form of government. I for my part am a fan of freedom to assemble in public, so when the police is dissolving my gathering in front of the only fire department access point to a burning building i will cry that my right to assemble should be absolute and the state is infringing on my right. And if you still think that your country has "free speech", how about you start posting everywhere that one of your friends has raped a bunch of girls. Let's see how much the USA with all that free speech protection protects your right to call someone a rapist without any proof in public. Point? You can restrict freedoms in law as much as your society tolerates it. These exist on a spectrum including when speech is tolerated up to the point that it is critical of the ruling government. I see no actual point from him ... he asserts without reason that free speech itself has its limits (if), when the true statement is German law imposes limits on free speech. This was a straightforward exercise of those limits codified in law. That’s not an argument for the suitability or unsuitability of such policies. I don’t really see your point on Freedom unless you’re trying to say Ursula was more free by being jailed for her writing and speech. Germany is less free than the US in this regard, and go have at it. It’s not my country and I shouldn’t have a say in it. You can compare countries regarding their laws of freedom of speech and say country A restricts freedom of speech more then country B. This however is not an idicator for anything else. There is neither a consensus that more freedom is automatically better nor should the USA be considered more free then Germany because you are allowed to say that the holocaust is fake news by the jewish mainstream media. Every country has to find a balance between individual freedoms and we simply say that the freedom to deny history is less important then the dignity of those that survived this history. Thank you for your agreement. I still disagree that this can be called freedom of speech if the opinion expressed is infringing on other people's life in a sense that it violated the basic human rights. That's just madness. Haha. You’re talking about balancing freedom of speech against other concerns in society. It doesn’t change the meaning of the term. Be a little more free to infringe on the freedom of speech without feeling bad. This is a little bit disingenuous. The definition of 'free' is a little more than a technicality. It's commonly used as free as in 'freedom', not as in 'free beer'. People attach value to the label, especially in the American discourse. Same with the word 'censorship'. You can use it in a technical sense, but this is hardly ever the case in the 'free speech' debate.
I don’t really see the problem. Free speech is restricted in lots of countries in lots of areas. It is understood to exist on a spectrum and even its staunchest defenders as a societal good recognize important restrictions like pornography and imminent incitement to violence. It shouldn’t be this scary “I don’t want to be thought to be against free speech” just because your country favors more limitations that another.
|
I completely agree and if we'd argue about these things that way I think we could spare ourselves a lot of trouble. But ever since the internet really took of the default position has become to essentially permit all speech on pretty much all platforms, and paint everybody who wants to regulate speech as a government spook, with the allusion to 1984 following promptly.
This really showed when the current German government implement the so callled Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (very German name for a law) whose whole purpose basically is to enforce existing speech legislation on internet platforms. Usually you would expect it to be fairly uncontroversial to hold businesses accountable to German law but it produced a huge uproar, even on the left, who are not known for their love of global business sovereignty.
|
On November 30 2017 04:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 01:49 Big J wrote:On November 30 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower. Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion. I disagree with your base meaning of freedom, as well as all the "freedoms" you listed above. Freedom is a singular entity, it can only have a single definition. Everything else is a false god. Since freedom is a physically given trait - I can always do what I physically can - the only question is always, how do you make it so that the freedom of one person does not (negatively) interfere with the freedom of another person. Which is the question of giving consent (in a broad sense - directly, or by consenting to a law or consenting to a process that creates a law). If someone undermines that consent, for example by shouting Nazi propaganda in my proximity, then we have to make the decision whether them violating my freedom is a bigger loss of freedom, than those who call themselves society compromising their freedom, when they punish that Nazi-shouter for that. Given the experience with the Nazi government and its frontal attack on freedom I don't see any evidence under which a person subscribing to Hitler's ideology is not a grave and dangerous violation of freedom of at the very least those, who would be killed by such a government. Nope. Not even close. Freedom properly defined is as I gave the definition. It isn’t narrowly those freedoms that bring you in direct interference. It’s centered on the individual, as the dictionary would tell you “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” Governments restrict freedoms, societal norms or maladies restrict freedoms, and the list goes on.
The reason I am not agreeing with you is the term "right" in there (and then also that speaking and thinking are instances of acting, which doesn't make it wrong but redundand to add these things).
Rights are always things that are socially constructed. Freedom is fundamental. There is no way around freedom. You can never not "act as you want" (=freedom). You don't need a right to hold that power and there is no right that can restrict that power. You are always fundamentally free, even when you are in jail, even when you are in the process of being killed, even when you are in a coma. There is no person that can act for you.
However, what is possible, is to put you into a situation in which someone else does things to you against your consent, which then is seen as an restriction of your freedom.
All people are always free. The difficulty is that all people are also free to believe they are being restricted against their consent by anyone else. That is (in my eyes) the fundamental reason to have laws to begin with, so that we have an - at the very least - informative ruleset of what this society believes to be general consensus.
|
On November 30 2017 05:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:37 maybenexttime wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. How is denying what Nazis did suddenly legitimizing it? According to what you've said, she claims that the Holocaust never happened. How are you making the jump to accusing her of claiming that the Holocaust was a good thing and should be repeated? You don't just deny the Holocaust. Especially not when your husband was in the SS and you say the gas couldn't kill people. You downplay it immensely and that has one goal only to legitimises it. Once it's legitimised you can carry on with the killings and a good conscience. This mightn't be sufficient for you, but to me reading about her demeanour in public it's obvious that she'd day they should do it the same way again because there was no killings.
There's no logical way of going from denial to legitimizing genocide. You can't say that something you claim didn't happen was okay. It doesn't make any sense.
You could argue that perhaps her goal is to rehabilitate Nazism by "proving" that it wasn't as bad as people claim it was, so that it could re-enter mainstream politics, assume power and carry out another genocide. Perhaps that's even the case here, although from my experience with the genocide committed on Poles by Ukrainians, there are different kinds of denialists. Some were simply taught false history (not in the case of Germany), for others the truth is too uncomfortable to believe it and then there are those with nefarious goals I've just described.
|
On November 30 2017 06:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:51 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:49 Big J wrote:On November 30 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:17 Big J wrote:On November 29 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 16:05 Artisreal wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.
Though I must say that it's pure garbage what you think on this one.
The example I posted is clearly not a matter of expressing an opinion, which would be fair, but of a revisionist display which sole goal is to legitimize what the Nazis did. Which is support for genocide among others.
To call this the use of one's free speech rights is delusional. But you're no stranger to delusion when it's not your rights that are infringed upon.
That America grants equal free speech to its citizens is laughable, but that just as a side-note.
The us could be so much better off if people jumped over the pretentious Shadow that is free speech and simply name horrible demagoguery and hate speech as it is and limit how much you can advocate for the suffering of others.
It's not free speech, it's a violation of so many other's human dignity. And it is highly questionable at best, if the human right to free speech can be exercised (or even applies) where it violates another human right. I have very little interest if other countries of the world allow their citizens less freedoms and are willing to accept the attendant costs. You have that structure and the citizens accept it (as far as I can tell). Just don’t prattle on about how “free speech has its limits” like you didn’t choose to restrict free speech in that manner and got that outcome. You are mixing two concepts. The one is freedom, which ends where your actions become nonconsensual interaction, the other is free speech, which is a concept that allows you to speak, disregarding consent about your words by others in your society. If America puts freedom of speech first under all circumstances then they are clearly not aiming for maximum freedom Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedoms of the secret ballot, etc etc. These are all freedoms, though I’m unfamiliar if German language constructions presume the word is narrower. Will the government jail you for saying “Merkel is wrong and dangerous,” “The holocaust is a lie,” or “The Christian God is a false god?” Will an angry mob assault and kill you with no consequence should that reaction occur? One of the base meanings of freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” I say this is a straightforward implementation of a limit on Ursula’s freedom, and maybe it’s good and maybe it’s bad, but it’s definitely related to freedoms reserved to the individual in society, contrary to your assertion. I disagree with your base meaning of freedom, as well as all the "freedoms" you listed above. Freedom is a singular entity, it can only have a single definition. Everything else is a false god. Since freedom is a physically given trait - I can always do what I physically can - the only question is always, how do you make it so that the freedom of one person does not (negatively) interfere with the freedom of another person. Which is the question of giving consent (in a broad sense - directly, or by consenting to a law or consenting to a process that creates a law). If someone undermines that consent, for example by shouting Nazi propaganda in my proximity, then we have to make the decision whether them violating my freedom is a bigger loss of freedom, than those who call themselves society compromising their freedom, when they punish that Nazi-shouter for that. Given the experience with the Nazi government and its frontal attack on freedom I don't see any evidence under which a person subscribing to Hitler's ideology is not a grave and dangerous violation of freedom of at the very least those, who would be killed by such a government. Nope. Not even close. Freedom properly defined is as I gave the definition. It isn’t narrowly those freedoms that bring you in direct interference. It’s centered on the individual, as the dictionary would tell you “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” Governments restrict freedoms, societal norms or maladies restrict freedoms, and the list goes on. The reason I am not agreeing with you is the term "right" in there (and then also that speaking and thinking are instances of acting, which doesn't make it wrong but redundand to add these things). Rights are always things that are socially constructed. Freedom is fundamental. There is no way around freedom. You can never not "act as you want" (=freedom). You don't need a right to hold that power and there is no right that can restrict that power. You are always fundamentally free, even when you are in jail, even when you are in the process of being killed, even when you are in a coma. There is no person that can act for you. However, what is possible, is to put you into a situation in which someone else does things to you against your consent, which then is seen as an restriction of your freedom. All people are always free. The difficulty is that all people are also free to believe they are being restricted against their consent by anyone else. That is (in my eyes) the fundamental reason to have laws to begin with, so that we have an - at the very least - informative ruleset of what this society believes to be general consensus.
Very odd construction, but interesting to hear.
|
That's an interesting explanation of human freedom, poetic I guess.
A human person is "free" only within certain degree in a universe around. Being essentially free on the other hand means u've got a choice to make for example - if you wanna die or not. We can't be free from time also. We got a freedom only on certain scale, but it has to be moderated in order to have a standarts for our common society - that's why we made laws. The problem is - standarts are different in various regions of our small planet.
|
I'm a mathematician. I need axioms and a logical consistent reasoning. If you define freedom as a physical trait it can be taken as an axiom, because it is undeniably there.
Only then can you argue for a liberal society, because you can argue based on that axiom and deduce your rules and rights in a way to maximize freedom in a world in which interactions of people necessarily restrict it.
If you start off as a socialist, so with the notion that there is a society and then base your argumentation on a fundamental process how that society makes rules then you will never end up with a system seeking to maximize freedom. The fundamental right will always be the one that the society can make any right, it doesn't have to serve freedom. Freedom in itself becomes a mere right that can be given or withdrawn.
|
On November 30 2017 17:03 Big J wrote:
I'm a mathematician. I need axioms and a logical consistent reasoning. If you define freedom a physical trait it can be taken as an axiom, because it is undeniably there.
Only then can you argue for a liberal society, because you can argue based on that axiom and deduce your rules and rights in a way to maximize freedom in a world in which interactions of people necessarily restrict it.
If you start off as a socialist, so with the notion that there is a society and then base your argumentation on a fundamental process how that society makes rules then you will never end up with a system seeking to maximize freedom. The fundamental right will always be the one that the society can make any right, it doesn't have to serve freedom. Freedom in itself becomes a mere right that can be given or withdrawn.
You say you're a mathematician and that's why you cannot fathom a concept isn't binary, which seems weird.
Absolute freedom: you have the "freedom" to shoot me in the face. You do not and imho *should* not have that freedom. So yes, your freedom is limited. The question then becomes how much and in what direction should we limit individual freedom to live with one another in a happy society. Clearly there are different answers possible to that question and that's where politics comes in.
The world isn't as black and white as your axioms.
And PS. I'm a mathematician too.
|
The question is: what is the quantifier to limit my freedom to shoot you? It's the axiom of freedom once again, but seen from your point of view instead of mine.
You put it very sloppily as "happiness". I simply cannot grasp the happiness of another person, that is up to that person. Only a person him-/herself can decide what makes them happy (in the economical sense, what their prices are), because of fundamental freedom. I can never make rules to make you happy, because I am simply not you and you have to find happiness for yourself. But we can seek rules to give everybody as much freedom as possible (the limit being the freedom of other people) and hope you find happiness in that society. The quantifier to limit personal freedom of one person is the freedom of the others. "Freedom is always the freedom of the others." (A slight missquote of Rosa Luxemburg)
My freedom is not limited per se. But I can consent to restrictions (laws, morals etc.) of my freedom, if I understand that they prevent harder restrictions (like being killed in an anarchy).
|
for your picture to be whole Big J, what you need to do know is realize that people, as in every single one of us, are not special snowflakes but are grouped in countable, finite sets(descriptive at first but my guess is that science could make them prescriptive). once you know/figure out that people can be grouped to within degrees of freedom, you realize how socialism can and does work.
yes, you can, do, and will grasp the happiness of other people.
also, know that freedom(as a concept) is taught and that its universal constrains are the same/equal for everyone.
|
On November 30 2017 19:37 xM(Z wrote:
for your picture to be whole Big J, what you need to do know is realize that people, as in every single one of us, are not special snowflakes but are grouped in countable, finite sets(descriptive at first but my guess is that science could make them prescriptive). once you know/figure out that people can be grouped to within degrees of freedom, you realize how socialism can and does work.
yes, you can, do, and will grasp the happiness of other people.
also, know that freedom(as a concept) is taught and that its universal constrains are the same/equal for everyone.
Only if you disregard the freedom of those who are special snowflakes. Of course we are all physically very similar and therefore we have a very high chance to understand the needs of each other if we really try. Point is, most people don't try. So any form of socialism (in the modern sense of state socialism) is always confronted with the problem that most people don't care enough, at least for people they are not interacting with, and there is no sure mechanism to elect those who try and even those who try will often be gravely mistaken trying to regulate in areas they don't understand. Which is why you have to split power a lot and make sure it can only be acquired in consentual, mutual benefitial mechanisms to begin with. Which is the typical problem with modern capitalism. It doesn't weight power by people or effort, but by money. Which, when it gets started from an egalitarian situation is pretty much the same, but it diverges because
a) people who have acquired money from effort win more, even when they stop making that extra effort, as they can use money as a source of power
b) inheritance gives individuals power without effort.
It just diverges a little slower from freedom (and all the benefits that come with it) than giving all power in the hands of state leaders to begin with, but in reality it ends in the same place without reset mechanisms (like extreme heritage taxes) and punishment mechanisms for bad (=mutually unbenefitial) resource management (like wealth taxes and enviromental taxes/regulations that force owners to work more efficient for mutual benefit than if the resource wasn't made exclusively owned).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
