|
|
On January 16 2015 00:14 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government? We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred. But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society. I expected that answer :p See the thing I dont get is who decides what constitutes a danger to society. If I lived in France I'm pretty sure I would consider Le Pen a danger to society... Heck I consider plenty of the Danish politicians a danger to society. I would understand a law outlawing inciting to violence - but I think anyone should be allowed to state that he thinks all "insert group" are "insert derogatory term".
Le Pen has been sentenced multiple times for incitation to racial hatred.
Now it's the role of the parliament and law makers to decide what is dangerous and not. Since they are elected democratically, they are supposed to reflect the general consensus in the country. Of course it could be different, and for example, the United States has a much more liberal take on free speech and where someone starts to be dangerous.
Maybe Europe has had first hand experience of what racial hatred can produce in an extent that the US have never known. I think if the Weimar republic and Europe in general had had laws against hateful speech in the 1920's, things would have been different?
|
On January 16 2015 00:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 00:14 Ghostcom wrote:On January 15 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government? We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred. But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society. I expected that answer :p See the thing I dont get is who decides what constitutes a danger to society. If I lived in France I'm pretty sure I would consider Le Pen a danger to society... Heck I consider plenty of the Danish politicians a danger to society. I would understand a law outlawing inciting to violence - but I think anyone should be allowed to state that he thinks all "insert group" are "insert derogatory term". Le Pen has been sentenced multiple times for incitation to racial hatred. Now it's the role of the parliament and law makers to decide what is dangerous and not. Since they are elected democratically, they are supposed to reflect the general consensus in the country. Of course it could be different, and for example, the United States has a much more liberal take on free speech and where someone starts to be dangerous. Maybe Europe has had first hand experience of what racial hatred can produce in an extent that the US have never known. I think if the Weimar republic and Europe in general had had laws against hateful speech in the 1920's, things would have been different?
The Weimar Republic had a very strong law that could be used to protect the state. The authorities could forbid public gatherings and agitators could face prison sentences etc. It just didn't help, the right-wing movement was too popular.
|
On January 16 2015 00:49 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 00:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2015 00:14 Ghostcom wrote:On January 15 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government? We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred. But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society. I expected that answer :p See the thing I dont get is who decides what constitutes a danger to society. If I lived in France I'm pretty sure I would consider Le Pen a danger to society... Heck I consider plenty of the Danish politicians a danger to society. I would understand a law outlawing inciting to violence - but I think anyone should be allowed to state that he thinks all "insert group" are "insert derogatory term". Le Pen has been sentenced multiple times for incitation to racial hatred. Now it's the role of the parliament and law makers to decide what is dangerous and not. Since they are elected democratically, they are supposed to reflect the general consensus in the country. Of course it could be different, and for example, the United States has a much more liberal take on free speech and where someone starts to be dangerous. Maybe Europe has had first hand experience of what racial hatred can produce in an extent that the US have never known. I think if the Weimar republic and Europe in general had had laws against hateful speech in the 1920's, things would have been different? The Weimar Republic had a very strong law that could be used to protect the state. The authorities could forbid public gatherings and agitators could face prison sentences etc. It just didn't help, the right-wing movement was too popular.
Well, I know that in France, you had a bunch of far right and fascists writers, journalists and opinion makers that were writing extraordinarily violent stuff against Jews. It really prepared what came next. Those people, I think, should have been silenced.
|
It's easier to fight hatred with brains rather than censorship. Censorship merely hides the hatred, doesn't mean it's still not there. A person who is silently racist is hardly better than one who is vocal. Better have people not be racist, antisemitic and intolerant in the first place.
|
On January 16 2015 01:21 Incognoto wrote:
It's easier to fight hatred with brains rather than censorship. Censorship merely hides the hatred, doesn't mean it's still not there. A person who is silently racist is hardly better than one who is vocal. Better have people not be racist, antisemitic and intolerant in the first place.
That's not possible that's what you need to understand, people are jerks and sometimes when it degenerates like in the case of being able to make apologies for terrorism governments have to be pragmatic and ban it to prevent further expansion of a virus that doesn't spread out of pure agreement to a logical and sound thesis.
That's the thing, blind hatred in most cases cannot be fought with rationality and can easily spread. It is in our nature to be violent and to confront others so to fight hatred, in most cases you usually either use hatred of your own or intelligent yet cunning methods to stop it. In our case the cunning method was to ban these types of irrational and hateful speech that could spread and lead to massive violence.
|
On January 16 2015 01:21 Incognoto wrote:
It's easier to fight hatred with brains rather than censorship. Censorship merely hides the hatred, doesn't mean it's still not there. A person who is silently racist is hardly better than one who is vocal. Better have people not be racist, antisemitic and intolerant in the first place.
"Censorship" indeed hides the hatred, which prevents people who are not "truly" racist, but racist simply by following norms, to act like racists. I'll explain myself here : if we take antisemitism in France between the two World Wars, I'm sure that while there were some true, actually mad, antisemitic people (a la Hitler), most of them were just acting like these antisemitic people because they blindly believed their propaganda, by lack of reflexion and information, or by opportunism. So preventing people from saying total bullshit that might inspire people who'll take this bullshit as true is not unjustified.
Or to put it in a more direct way, to fight hatred with brains, most people need to have brains. And if most people actually had brains, then hatred wouldn't exist in the first place.
|
On January 16 2015 00:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 00:14 Ghostcom wrote:On January 15 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 15 2015 23:49 Ghostcom wrote:
It seems a little undemocratic to simply outlaw opinions. If you have so little faith in the people that you don't trust them to ignore people like Dieudonnè then how in the world dare you trust them with voting for the government? We don't, and we just pray they don't ever become a majority :D It's not outlawing opinions, really, it's outlawing public expression of speech that is harmful of dangerous. You really have the right to think that it would be a good idea to kill all French jews. That's an opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to have it. You don't have the right to do anything in that way because you would be a murderer, and you don't have the right to claim it because it would be inciting to racial hatred. But you can have racially motivated hatred yourself, as long as you don't try to push it to others, in which case you become a danger for society. I expected that answer :p See the thing I dont get is who decides what constitutes a danger to society. If I lived in France I'm pretty sure I would consider Le Pen a danger to society... Heck I consider plenty of the Danish politicians a danger to society. I would understand a law outlawing inciting to violence - but I think anyone should be allowed to state that he thinks all "insert group" are "insert derogatory term". Le Pen has been sentenced multiple times for incitation to racial hatred. Now it's the role of the parliament and law makers to decide what is dangerous and not. Since they are elected democratically, they are supposed to reflect the general consensus in the country. Of course it could be different, and for example, the United States has a much more liberal take on free speech and where someone starts to be dangerous. Maybe Europe has had first hand experience of what racial hatred can produce in an extent that the US have never known. I think if the Weimar republic and Europe in general had had laws against hateful speech in the 1920's, things would have been different?
1) Weimar had laws against hateful speech.
2) I think the Black community would largely disagree with you - sure they weren't rounded up in extermination camps like under Nazi-Germany, but it seems a little silly to ignore the little incident in 1861-1865 and all that lead up to it (and has sadly followed/is still ongoing)
If anything, the US has experienced how much good can come from free speech exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr. I'm pretty sure many in power considered him a threat to society.
No, I still am no closer to understanding the need to outlaw expression of opinions not directly encouraging criminal acts.
EDIT: I also think that it is an unhealthy attitude to assume that people in general are stupid which seems pervasive to the other answers I've been given.
|
There is freedom of speech/expression and then there is simply spreading hate and racism. I mean most people would probably agree that punching somebody in the face should be illegal, because a person is getting hurt. Now the same can be done with words, often to much greater effect. Spreading racism or hate will result in discrimination and violence if it is done often enough. People can literally be bullied to insanity just by using "freedom of speech".
|
It's not about stupidity, it is about human nature. Even if you are the most logical and intellectual person in the world, living in a racist environment will make you prejudiced against the victims of this racism, at least in passive way.
|
On January 16 2015 03:53 Nyxisto wrote:
There is freedom of speech/expression and then there is simply spreading hate and racism. I mean most people would probably agree that punching somebody in the face should be illegal, because a person is getting hurt. Now the same can be done with words, often to much greater effect. Spreading racism or hate will result in discrimination and violence if it is done often enough. People can literally be bullied to insanity just by using "freedom of speech".
But where do you draw the line for what constitues hatespeech? Isn't a paper like Charlie Hebdo spreading hate? A majority of Muslims seems to think so - so much that it was banned nationwide in Turkey.
What you are promoting is a slippery slope towards oppression of anyone with a diverging opinion. Just look at Sweden where all political parties have agreed to for 8 years to keep Sverigedemokraterne from ANY influence - that is outright ignoring 13% of the population. That is a problem in a democracy.
Edit: just realised we might be on a tangent here. Anyone heard anything about the third subject?
|
You draw the line through consensus like with every other crime that exists. This is not special, lines are drawn everywhere all the time. It's sometimes a little hard to define it objectively but often it's obvious when you see it.
|
On January 16 2015 04:51 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 03:53 Nyxisto wrote:
There is freedom of speech/expression and then there is simply spreading hate and racism. I mean most people would probably agree that punching somebody in the face should be illegal, because a person is getting hurt. Now the same can be done with words, often to much greater effect. Spreading racism or hate will result in discrimination and violence if it is done often enough. People can literally be bullied to insanity just by using "freedom of speech". But where do you draw the line for what constitues hatespeech? Isn't a paper like Charlie Hebdo spreading hate? A majority of Muslims seems to think so - so much that it was banned nationwide in Turkey. What you are promoting is a slippery slope towards oppression of anyone with a diverging opinion. Just look at Sweden where all political parties have agreed to for 8 years to keep Sverigedemokraterne from ANY influence - that is outright ignoring 13% of the population. That is a problem in a democracy. Edit: just realised we might be on a tangent here. Anyone heard anything about the third subject?
Drawing the line is the role of the judges and of justice. Charlie Hebdo has been sued many times, and has been sentenced sometimes because the judges estimated that the line had been crossed. (iirc it's something like 9 sentences for almost 50 trials).
And it's not about assuming people are dumb, it's about the simple fact that most people have a tendency to consider true what they hear others saying without taking time to research the actual facts and make their own opinions.
|
On January 16 2015 04:51 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 03:53 Nyxisto wrote:
There is freedom of speech/expression and then there is simply spreading hate and racism. I mean most people would probably agree that punching somebody in the face should be illegal, because a person is getting hurt. Now the same can be done with words, often to much greater effect. Spreading racism or hate will result in discrimination and violence if it is done often enough. People can literally be bullied to insanity just by using "freedom of speech". But where do you draw the line for what constitues hatespeech? Isn't a paper like Charlie Hebdo spreading hate? A majority of Muslims seems to think so - so much that it was banned nationwide in Turkey. What you are promoting is a slippery slope towards oppression of anyone with a diverging opinion. Just look at Sweden where all political parties have agreed to for 8 years to keep Sverigedemokraterne from ANY influence - that is outright ignoring 13% of the population. That is a problem in a democracy. Edit: just realised we might be on a tangent here. Anyone heard anything about the third subject?
Freedom of speech (or the opression of such) have nothing to do with Sweden's current political mess.
|
On January 16 2015 05:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 04:51 Ghostcom wrote:On January 16 2015 03:53 Nyxisto wrote:
There is freedom of speech/expression and then there is simply spreading hate and racism. I mean most people would probably agree that punching somebody in the face should be illegal, because a person is getting hurt. Now the same can be done with words, often to much greater effect. Spreading racism or hate will result in discrimination and violence if it is done often enough. People can literally be bullied to insanity just by using "freedom of speech". But where do you draw the line for what constitues hatespeech? Isn't a paper like Charlie Hebdo spreading hate? A majority of Muslims seems to think so - so much that it was banned nationwide in Turkey. What you are promoting is a slippery slope towards oppression of anyone with a diverging opinion. Just look at Sweden where all political parties have agreed to for 8 years to keep Sverigedemokraterne from ANY influence - that is outright ignoring 13% of the population. That is a problem in a democracy. Edit: just realised we might be on a tangent here. Anyone heard anything about the third subject? Drawing the line is the role of the judges and of justice. Charlie Hebdo has been sued many times, and has been sentenced sometimes because the judges estimated that the line had been crossed. (iirc it's something like 9 sentences for almost 50 trials).And it's not about assuming people are dumb, it's about the simple fact that most people have a tendency to consider true what they hear others saying without taking time to research the actual facts and make their own opinions.
Wow, exactly like dieudonné :D
But dieudonné is hate for some reason while CH is free speech. That's why the cursor problem is a problem, when people that say the same thing but on one side it's considered "hate" and another "freedom of speech".
The one who target a powerful community is making hate speech, while the other that targeting a poor (but with 20 times the people) community is exercising his freedom of speech. And everyone is ok with that.
|
There is no point talking with you, Dieudoné targets Jews as a people while CH targets religions and right wing extremes.
|
On January 16 2015 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
You draw the line through consensus like with every other crime that exists. This is not special, lines are drawn everywhere all the time. It's sometimes a little hard to define it objectively but often it's obvious when you see it.
Considering the discussion we are currently having it is hardly obvious, nor objective as there obviously exists some divergent opinions on the drawings of Charlie Hebdo. And if everything is simply decided by consensus, then why do we even need the limitations in the first place? Obviously it would the be okay if 50.1% agreed to kick out all members of "insert group" of their country... No, in a democracy there need to be some protection for minorities and freedom for them to voice their opinions is part of that protection. I'm also willing to bet that a lot of extremism stems from being ignored, marginalised, and looked down upon. In society at large there seems to be less and less respect for each other - leading to an á priori dismissal of the opinions of those that disagree.
|
On January 16 2015 07:22 Acertos wrote:
There is no point talking with you, Dieudoné targets Jews as a people while CH targets religions and right wing extremes.
So targeting one group is off limits, but the other is totally fine because... You said so? A Muslim will tell you that they have no more choice in believing than a Jew has of being jewish (which ironically is tied largely to Judaism). I'm sorry but your distinction doesn't really work.
|
On January 16 2015 07:23 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
You draw the line through consensus like with every other crime that exists. This is not special, lines are drawn everywhere all the time. It's sometimes a little hard to define it objectively but often it's obvious when you see it. Considering the discussion we are currently having it is hardly obvious, nor objective as there obviously exists some divergent opinions on the drawings of Charlie Hebdo. And if everything is simply decided by consensus, then why do we even need the limitations in the first place? Obviously it would the be okay if 50.1% agreed to kick out all members of "insert group" of their country... No, in a democracy there need to be some protection for minorities and freedom for them to voice their opinions is part of that protection. I'm also willing to bet that a lot of extremism stems from being ignored, marginalised, and looked down upon. In society at large there seems to be less and less respect for each other - leading to an á priori dismissal of the opinions of those that disagree.
I agree with all of it. That's why I said that there is a difference between free speech and racism/discrimination. The point was just that regulation on free speech is not an automatic slippery slope into some kind of authoritarian state or whatever, just because a line needs to be established.
|
On January 16 2015 07:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2015 07:23 Ghostcom wrote:On January 16 2015 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
You draw the line through consensus like with every other crime that exists. This is not special, lines are drawn everywhere all the time. It's sometimes a little hard to define it objectively but often it's obvious when you see it. Considering the discussion we are currently having it is hardly obvious, nor objective as there obviously exists some divergent opinions on the drawings of Charlie Hebdo. And if everything is simply decided by consensus, then why do we even need the limitations in the first place? Obviously it would the be okay if 50.1% agreed to kick out all members of "insert group" of their country... No, in a democracy there need to be some protection for minorities and freedom for them to voice their opinions is part of that protection. I'm also willing to bet that a lot of extremism stems from being ignored, marginalised, and looked down upon. In society at large there seems to be less and less respect for each other - leading to an á priori dismissal of the opinions of those that disagree. I agree with all of it. That's why I said that there is a difference between free speech and racism/discrimination. The point was just that regulation on free speech is not an automatic slippery slope into some kind of authoritarian state or whatever, just because a line needs to be established.
I just reread your post - I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree it is not an automatic slippery slope to limit freedom of expression (which I actually thought I had made clear) - I just think the definition of "Hatespeech" is fluid and is currently being used to silence those with dissenting opinion more than actually offering protection.
EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear, I think Dieudonné is an absolute nutjob and have no sympathy for his views.
|
On January 16 2015 07:22 Acertos wrote:
There is no point talking with you, Dieudoné targets Jews as a people while CH targets religions and right wing extremes.
Ok so forget dieudonné, most french people are brainwashed by years of media lies about him anyway so you're right talking about him is counter productive. Dieudonné targets everyone by the way, like CH.
Let's talk about CH instead, all year long they say arabs are terrorists and their prophet is too, but when one of their journalist makes a "jew have money" joke article he instantly gets fired because he somehow crossed the line and he's antisemitic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
