Is it possible that countries without freedom of speech hold considerably worse views about race, homosexuals, etc than the U.S.?

I look at it as, there are few things that are impossible, therefore, all of the above suggestions are possible.

I am interested in this question, but could use a few more details. What country and can you give an example?

^ say, Germany

Are you referring to holocaust deniers and their prosecution?

^ Yes. While I did hear of the Faurisson thing years ago (as a fan of Chomsky), I didn’t realize that this was really still a thing.

Being English I can safely say…fuck Europe & it’s beaurocratic nonsense.

Possible? It’s certain. Look at how Iran and Saudi Arabia treat women and gays. Look at France and it’s virulent racism against Arabs. But really, only the first two count according to your question. France has freedom of speech (Article 11 of the Déclaration), as does Germany (Article 5 of the Grundgesetz). That there are exceptions doesn’t really make it different than the US since the First Amendment has more judicial footnotes than any other part of the US Constitution. If we’re going by an absolute standard, no country has freedom of speech.

I was with you until you said “worse”. Your posing the question that way telegraphs your American-liberal-centric attitude.

Although these may seem ‘worse’ to you with American eyes, you have to take into account that different cultures have different values. What the norm is in, for example, Saudi Arabia, is not the norm in the US, and therefore labelling it as ‘worse’ smacks of US imperialism.

Now, I happen to agree with you and the point you are making, but your choice of words was not very good.

What modern European country has no freedom of speech?

Your whole questions is flawed.

Worse views on race, homosexuals and so on, than the U.S. ?

In what way? I don’t feel the U.S. score particularly well on those topics to begin with.

It’s difficult to ascertain EXACTLY what you are asking. Attitudes about your issues are going to diverge throughout the population of whatever country you care to name, just as here. Are you asking about state policies on such matters? Is it restrictions and sanctions against hate speech as state policy that defines “without freedom of speech”?

Whenever I see a question like this, my mind always snaps to Iran with their treatment of homosexuals and women but at the same time, they beat out the US when it comes to transgender rights comparatively… funny how humans work sometimes

What. The. Fuck. I don’t even know WHERE to begin. This is one of the most ignorant questions I’ve heard on fluther, and that’s saying a lot. First of all, we don’t have a Patriot Act, the US does. We didn’t have Joe McCarthy and those crazy hearings, the US did. We didn’t have segregation, the US did. The Nazis had internment camps, but you know who else did? The US. We don’t kill our prisoners, but you know who does? That’s right again! The US. We believe ALL our citizens and residents should have access to the best healthcare, regardless of employment status, prior conditions or birth defects… but you know who is constantly fighting that?? That’s right the US of A. So, remind me again who has civil rights violations? Who’s cops kill their citizenry off at an alarming rate? Who’s ‘justice system’ of bail bonds and expensive legal help assists in putting the poorest and least able to afford help in jail instead of actually serving justice? Which country has more people behind bars per capita? Also, some info about same sex marriage here in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe
Yeah… Go watch some Fox news and take your Xanax America. I’m a resident of a European country. I’m a woman, and I fucking speak my mind, and so do my friends in the Netherlands and Germany and France and Sweden.

Very possible. VERY possible.

Also, we have Right Wing nut jobs, just like America does. We want them to speak up. They are easier to identify and avoid. We have a right wing Christian party that constantly gets seat in our government because… well, people are all different, but they are very different from parties calling themselves ‘Christian Right’ in the US. At the moment, we have a more Right Wing government and they are fucking over the country. I can say that because I have the freedom to do so. We have people who are extremely anti-Muslim, anti-immigration and there have been new paper articles about the Police in Oslo targeting groups in pubs. These groups are dark skinned and they frequently get tossed out of places because they are accused of being gangs. They don’t, however, get shot. We have Romany Gypsies begging in our streets. Dozens of them. There are frequently calls to have them removed, pass local laws to outlaw begging, but they never pass because people just don’t have the heart. I’m not saying we don’t have racism, we absolutely do. How the Sami were treated historically was pretty bad. Nothing like the Native Americans, mind you, but they have their own parliament up north now and enjoy certain indigenous rights. We frequently have marches in our town square. They get organised by one group or another. One week might be the teachers union, and next might be a group called ‘Keep Norway Christian’. The next group might be a secular group trying to call attention to the killing of bloggers in Bangladesh.

I’m American and my feeling is the main point of freedom of speech is to be able to freely speak against the government. To disagree with political leaders and political policy. All of Western Europe has this right. Germany might have some rules about what can be said or displayed regarding the Nazis, and some other countries might have other restrictions regarding speech not known to me, but to say they don’t have freedom of speech is not correct in my opinion.

Even in America it is against the law to threaten the President, to yell fire in a crowded stadium, to incite a riot.

America has so many examples of treating people badly based on race, sexual orientation, religion, and more that I don’t see how anyone can feel we are the best or an ideal example of freedom, respect, and equality.

Sorry for the stupid question. I was a bit sleep deprived and looking to be a argumentative, I suppose. While worded poorly, I do think there is part of my question which is legit. If it’s holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, what can we say about what people really think about the holocaust in Germany? It might not matter to some people, but it was just a thought.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield – Yes, there are exceptions in the US – many of which I likely disagree with. But I don’t think you’ll find anyone facing prison time for expressing unpopular opinions in a book.

@elbanditoroso – I’m not a moral relativist, so I am able to make value judgments on things like racism.

@whitenoise: “Your whole questions is flawed.”

Yep.

@whitenoise: “I don’t feel the U.S. score particularly well on those topics to begin with.”

Neither do I. But the U.S. is able to deny the holocaust without fear of prison. I’m just pondering what it would be like in Germany if that were not a law. Would everyone suddenly publish a book denying the holocaust? Is it a legitimate fear that the masses in Germany are just waiting for free speech to say what they really think?

@stanleybmanly: “Is it restrictions and sanctions against hate speech as state policy that defines “without freedom of speech”?”

Yes. It’s my understanding (granted, I know almost nothing about German law) that if I write a book that violates states that the holocaust didn’t exist or downplay parts of it, I could be imprisoned…

”(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.”

@cazzie – I’ll assume you posted that response to the wrong thread. You’re preaching to the choir. I’m an anti-American socialist who is likely more radical/left/progressive than you are on any issue. I apologize for the poor question and poor wording, but I think you may have jumped the gun (and got a little patriotic/tribal in the process). My point was that the U.S. is about as bad as it gets, yet many of us fantasize about Europe as being perfect. To hear that a) it’s not perfect and b) may possibly have places where free speech is behind the U.S. is enlightening. But that’s ok. When you prop up some place as “other” and almost magically anti-shit, it’s bound to disappoint to hear about a little shit. Also, the whole pondering tone of my question was really just that – what can we know about German attitudes about the holocaust, for example, if they fear prosecution.

@JLeslie: “America has so many examples of treating people badly based on race, sexual orientation, religion, and more that I don’t see how anyone can feel we are the best or an ideal example of freedom, respect, and equality.”

Again, I’m quite surprised by this reaction. You’re talking to someone who’s been spit at and told to leave the U.S.. I am the guy at the party (and Fluther) that talks about how the U.S. is so fucked up, it might be best to wipe out everyone and start all over. I’m hands-down the least patriotic person and most anti-american U.S. citizen here on fluther, yet ask a question about Europe or hint that I might be let down that my non-empirical romanticizing of Europe might have taken a hit based on possible free speech issues, and we are suddenly seeing people interpreting this as claims of American pride. Odd. Very odd.

@DoNotKnow I definitely think that people overreacted to your question a bit. As another American citizen who can’t stand how things are done here and how far behind we are in certain human rights issues (and could never be called patriotic in any way), I get looking to certain European countries as shining examples of how things should be here. However, your mistake (though understandable) was romanticizing anywhere – because every country has their flaws. It isn’t good to be patriotic in any country, simply because there are always going to be ways to do things better in one way or another.

We here in the US don’t really have free speech, we just have freer speech. There is a lot we can say, I can say the sky is a pretty blue and fish happily swim in the ocean and no one will try to sue me or malign me. If I spoke how I felt on other subjects, even when there is more than a tinge if truth in it, someone will get bent. They may have a different form of freer speech, but I don’t think that would have anything to do with how they perceive or not, another nationality of even caste people within their own nation.

@DoNotKnow My point is that I think it goes too far to say that Germany doesn’t have freedom of speech. They have an article in their constitution that protects freedom of expression, and the exceptions to it are both clearly defined and based on historical problems. We don’t have to like the exceptions, but that doesn’t mean we get to pretend they mean something they don’t.

@Hypocrisy_Central Freedom of speech means the government can’t punish you for saying something it doesn’t like. It doesn’t mean that other people can’t criticize you because that would violate their right to free speech. Get it?

@Hypocrisy_Central People mistake their opinions as facts. Relevant: http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMi03MjA1OWM2OWRlOTgyYTIw.png

@DoNotKnow Well, I am fairly patriotic. I think America has great ideals about equality, religion, and the pursuit of happiness that were laid down at our founding. Europe can’t say that. But, Europe and other countries seem to have surpassed us in some ways after a couple of hundred years, but I don’t idealize those countries, I don’t get that.

My Mexican SIL talked about how before she moved to the US she thought the US was where everyone was free and equal. Her impression is the government here is in your private business all the time, and that who you know can help you and give you advantages, and she never guessed that would exist here. The moral of the story is until you experience the country yourself, I don’t feel you can really know what it’s like to live there.

I trust our European jellies speak the truth. Several
of them have lived, or spent a lot of time, in America and other countries. They really can tell you the comparisons between the countries I think.

@DoNotKnow What can you know about German attitudes about the holocaust? Get a passport and do some travelling.

@DoNotKnow: “You’re talking to someone who’s been spit at and told to leave the U.S.. I am the guy at the party (and Fluther) that talks about how the U.S. is so fucked up, it might be best to wipe out everyone and start all over.”

I certainly agree with you and others that numerous things in the US are messed up, and that many other countries, particularly in Europe, are ahead in human rights, proper care of their citizens, etc. However, why are you surprised that you are spit at and told to leave when the solution you propose is to wipe everyone out and start over? One does not need to be a right-wing Fox News watcher to have some pride and hope for their country.

As @cazzie said, get a passport, travel and learn about other places. In person. Leave behind your criticisms. I suspect the residents of other countries might tell you to get out as well.

Thanks, everyone. Yes, I do plan on traveling at some point in my life (if I can afford it).

@Inara27: “However, why are you surprised”

Not sure where I mentioned being surprised. And for context, I was active during the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. During one of the demonstrations, there were a handful of counter protestors on the side yelling at us to leave the US and calling our actions treasonous. One of them actually spit at me and may have only caught a piece of my shoe.
The only reason I brought it up was express how confused some people get when they jump to conclusions about who they’re talking to.

It is encouraging, in a strange sense, to see this type of knee-jerk behavior here. It is making me think that I have some more questions to ask after all.

I appreciate that you have your strong politics but that isn’t the same as having knowledge about or traveled or studied other countries.

@DoNotKnow, the way it was phrased sounded like it was a person’s reaction at a party to what you said. I would have been right next to you on that protest to stay out of Iraq. I get frustrated at the idea that disagreement with the government equals treason. These very people who waive the constitution around are the ones who least understand it.

@cazzie – I couldn’t agree more. Remember, this is what I’m saying. I know less than nothing about anywhere but the U.S. But there are people like me here who spend a lifetime being told to leave or “go move to France, commie!” (?) most of our lives. It’s difficult not to romanticize other places. And like I said – this romanticizing was based on nothing. It was not empirical. I’m describing my own ignorance and being reminded to keep in mind how ignorant I am. :)

Being self aware enough to realise where your ignorance lies is a HUGE bonus and is absolutely not a negative personality trait. Quite the opposite. Sorry if I came down so hard, but I’ve been reading about the GOP debate and how high Trumps ratings got and I’m just so frustrated. You could tell I felt bad because when I calmed down, I gave a bit more of a balanced answer.

But I’m wondering, what specific incident lead you to have your ideas about Europe smashed?

@cazzie: “But I’m wondering, what specific incident lead you to have your ideas about Europe smashed?”

I still need to do more research (obviously). But the whole holocaust denial laws thing really threw me off. It seemed to be the stuff of a dystopian novel – not a progressive country. But that said, it might not have been as broad as I had feared. It does appear to be specifically designed to address the holocaust – and not necessarily a sweeping assault on free speech.

@DoNotKnow

Neither do I. But the U.S. is able to deny the holocaust without fear of prison. I’m just pondering what it would be like in Germany if that were not a law. Would everyone suddenly publish a book denying the holocaust? Is it a legitimate fear that the masses in Germany are just waiting for free speech to say what they really think?

Having the freedom to express oneself doesn’t mean one can say whatever without consequence.

In the U.S., one cannot just defame people either. Telling people that your mother is a whore, for instance can put one up for defamation or libel. In some U.S. states it’s even punishable to defame the dead.

Now if it wouldn’t be illegal to call your mother a whore, do you think many people will start doing so? I can’t believe that.

In the Dutch constitution it says nowhere that you can say whatever you want, it says you don’t need prior permission from the government to express your opinion. That means you may still be held responsible for what you say.

‘Enticing hatred’ is one of the examples punishable under Dutch law. As are defamation of the king and his spouse and blasphemy.

In practice blasphemy has not been punished in recent history in Holland and recently a person that said ‘Fuck the government, fuck the King’ was found unguilty of insulting the king. In this context ‘Fuck the King’ had to be seen as a political statement.

Another example of limiting expression is the ‘insulting a police officer’. Recently it was deemed that calling one an ‘ant-fucker’ was not enough to be construed as an insult. In nowadays US it may get you shot.

Ant fucker?!

I was surprised that this question was coming from you, but then, I found myself enjoying it. I think I get where you’re coming from. Thanks for giving me something to think about during my train ride today.

First off, as I’m sure you know, “Europe” does not equal “Europe”. There is no freedom of speech in Iran. I’m going to keep this centered on Germany, though, because that’s what prompted your question.

You said, “I understand that we have some people here from Europe, and they are likely to share their thoughts on this. But really, can we be sure that they are sharing their thoughts on this, or are they speaking approved words?”

Well…yes, you can be sure I am sharing my thoughts. If I stated that the holocaust was an awesome idea, this is what would need to happen for me to actually get punished;

1. Someone would need to notice, disagree, and bring it to attention of the courts.

2. The courts would need to deem it a punishable offence. Me sharing my stupid opinions on a small Q & A forum would never get any judge interested. I went to law school for six years, and if there’s anything I learned, it’s that breaking the law is not enough to get people prosecuted.

3. My lawyer would have to be an idiot. The Grundgesetz is way above any holocaust denial laws, and me sharing my opinion online, again, would never get me punished.

I realize that all this is what I might say if I was controlled by government officials breathing down my neck. I also realize that freedom of speech is not supposed to come with exceptions to the rule. In practice, I think it does in most places.

As to Germany, I think the laws were made to show respect toward the people hurt and killed in WW2. You made me think about this for the first time. I guess most Germans accept that, because of our history, it will be a while before we can come to terms with what happened. We may never reach that point. There is definitely a lot of concern about that part of our history, people are often not sure how to put in words what they want to say. This however, is not due to fear of the police. It’s just a collective shame which still lingers. No idea whether it’s helpful in general, but it’s there, and I think the high sensitivity to all things nationalistic gives us a good chance not to repeat history. Children learn about Hitler incredibly early, and they also learn that the swastika and the nazi salute are not supposed to be seen. They don’t get taught that they will be put in prison – they’re taught that those symbols remind everyone of a horrible time, when relatives or friends of people still among us died horrific deaths. It’s not an easy topic to discuss, but the fact that we need to discuss it is a good thing.

@DoNotKnow If you have never been out of the country you have no idea how you will feel or react to the new environment and culture. Some people go to another country and feel instantly at home, like they had been born in the wrong country. Most people, or I should say most Americans I know, travel to other countries and appreciate their life in America. I think you should travel, because you might find a place you prefer, but more importantly I think you will appreciate America more too.

Where do you live? America is huge. We have all sorts of choices to live in other climates, live in rural towns, large cities, liberal places, religious places, places with a lot of young people, places with a lot of older people, places with great food, places with a high percentage of gay people, places with a lot of artists, and on and on. Maybe you live in a corner of the country that is a bad fit for you.

@Dutchess_III
An ant-fucker, or in Dutch: a mierenneuker, is someone that is being a nuisance over insignificant things. A hair-splitter.

Here is a small taste of my life. I had a dinner party a year ago before all my best friends left to go back to their home countries. Sitting around the table was me, who lived in the US for her first 19 years, and then lived in New Zealand for 15 years and then moved to Norway 12 years ago. Then there was a girlfriend who grew up behind the iron curtain in Berlin, then a girlfriend who grew up in Soviet controlled Lithuania, then a girlfriend who grew up in Jakarta to mixed family with Javanese and Chinese, and they are Christian (a minority there). We all communicated by speaking our second language, Norwegian. We learned a lot that night.

@DoNotKnow I’m confused. I missed something, maybe I am reading to fast. What Holocaust denial laws?

@cazzie My life is similar in America in terms of interacting with people from many parts of the world. Less so, the years I spent in MI and the south. Also, I have not lived in other countries. The OP can experience a lot of diversity in America living in the right cities. You grew up in the upper Midwest, if I remember correctly (I easily could be remembering incorrectly) which tends to be very “white” but not necessarily. I don’t know which city you lived in.

@JLeslie that’s right. I grew up in small town, midwest, USA… Didn’t like it. I don’t even like going back there for visits.

@DoNotKnow The fact a country has a law on it’s books that people can’t lie about their history bothers you that much? We have laws here that we can’t name out kids what ever we want. Do you think that is repressive and unfair?

@cazzie: “The fact a country has a law on it’s books that people can’t lie about their history bothers you that much?”

Absolutely. You have no idea how much this bothers me. For a government to control history like this is unacceptable and unjustified.

You seem ok with it. Why are you ok with government-sanctioned versions of history that, if opposed, result in persecution?

It’s Germany. They can’t have people denying such an awful thing that happened. History isn’t an opinion. It isn’t a theory of economics or theology. History is what happened in the past. It is too easy for a nation to forget what happened in their past when people start to lie about it. When people forget about history, they never learn from past mistakes. It would be too easy to dismiss it and collectively agree it never happened because it is painful.

Governments don’t control history, but they can try to preserve the truth. Too many governments try to preserve lies.

^ So, you’re fine with it because you happen to agree with the government-approved version of history. But what happens when you don’t? What about all of us on the left who have unpopular interpretations of history?

What if the U.S. implemented such a law and made it illegal to talk about the genocide of Native Americans or any unpopular take on history?

This is why civil libertarians here in the U.S. support the rights of the KKK to hold their demonstrations. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean only supporting the speech that we agree with.

It’s quite possible that the exceptional nature of the holocaust called for this limitation of free speech and a creation of an official history. But just because you support the official version doesn’t mean that you always will. Radicals/progressives/the left, etc need the ability to express their unpopular opinions without threat of persecution.

Do you think such a law would pass in the US? Then I think you have bigger problems. But to the people in Germany, it was important enough for them to say, ‘No, we won’t listen to lies about our past’ and enough of them were decent enough human beings to stand up for the truth. It wasn’t a decree by a dictator.

They still have neo nazis. We do too, and they march in the ‘Keep Norway Christian’ demonstrations. But no one here is allowed to name their child Adolf.

And you got it exactly right. The exceptional nature of the holocaust called for it. And it probably works in the other direction in places like Cambodia. I doubt those kids are taught about the killing fields, but maybe they are. I don’t know anyone from Cambodia. And I’m pretty sure there are some interesting revisionist history going on in the US as well.

^ Then, I guess this really comes back around to my question. In 2015, does the existence of holocaust denial laws mean that it’s possible that Germany is protected from an imminent rise in fascism by these laws? Is it possible that we are not even aware of how bad popular opinion is because expression of such opinion could be interperted as violating German law?

Anyway, it was just a thought. If it helps, we could just make up a hypothetical country that has government-sanctioed versions of history that are protected by threat of imprisonment.

Hardly on it’s way to the state of 1984.

@cazzie: “But to the people in Germany, it was important enough for them to say, ‘No, we won’t listen to lies about our past’ and enough of them were decent enough human beings to stand up for the truth. It wasn’t a decree by a dictator.”

I just noticed that you had added this to the comment. I figured I’d respond…

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You present this story in a positive light. I see it as a nightmare scenario. And again, if the unpopular position was the one being outlawed, I suspect you’d fall on the other side here.

Anyway, thank for the conversation. Again, I could have (should have) worded the original question better. I may start another thread at some point specifically about the concept of only liking laws when you happen to agree with them – even when they violate others’ rights. We have a large fundamentalist Christian population here in the U.S. that would love to break down the church/state separation because they are in the majority and think they can get away with it. However, if the majority were suddenly Muslim, they would join us in the fight for church/state separation. When you fight for rights, you fight for the rights of everyone – even those people you disagree with.

^ And note: I’m not saying that it would be bad if the people of Germany were so intolerant of ridiculous holocaust denial attempts that they met them with ridicule or just ignored them. But to make this a law…and a law punishable by prison, means that these people are ok with criminalizing unpopular speech. I can’t see how anyone who holds unpopular positions can support this. It’s handing power to the status quo at the expense of dissent.

The fact that ridicule and ignoring holocaust deniers is not possible tells me something about current levels of anti-semitism in Germany. But again, I could be wrong.

It isn’t ‘unpopular’ speech. It is lying and it is inciting hate. They are ridiculed and but they can not be ignored. Apathy by the many is what made it all possible in the first place.

@cazzie: “It isn’t ‘unpopular’ speech. It is lying and it is inciting hate.”

“It isn’t ice cream, it’s chocolate-chip ice cream.”

If we followed those standards, the hundreds of thousands of books filling books stores in the U.S. would be the last words of people rotting in jail. Using those standards, nearly every Christian in the U.S. would be in facing persecution – unless they were silent about their Christianity.

I understand that it’s difficult to apply a principle to something as awful as the Nazis – but you are not a supporter of free speech (unpopular speech) if you support criminalizing people who deny that they holocaust existed or downplay it. That’s fine. We might be able to leave it as that. We have different values in this area.

Well.. we call that extrapolating from a true point until it has no meaning.

What do you think of a law being passed by the US saying that people should not deny that the Civil War happened? How actually harmful would that be?

@cazzie: “What do you think of a law being passed by the US saying that people should not deny that the Civil War happened?”

I would fight against that law with a passion (or pay more than my annual ACLU membership dues).

@cazzie: “How actually harmful would that be?”

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. The fact that the law existed would say that the government has opened the door to prosecution against “official” speech. Maybe you could come up with a better example.

I do think we’re getting closer to an understanding of each other’s positions here. Note: I’m not completely unfamiliar with what you’re saying. I’m a civil libertarian, and we have plenty of more conservative and moderates here in the U.S. that feel that we’ve arrived. While we (as a society and world) make progress, we don’t need to feel that we’ve figured it all out. The progressives of yesterday are the conservatives of today. We need to leave the mechanism open for affecting change. That mechanism is speech – unpopular speech. We don’t progress by forming a government that will only allow popular speech. We progress by fighting to be able to say precisely the things that offend and go against the status quo. When we decide today that we give the government the right to limit unpopular speech, we destroy the very mechanism that we have used to make progress.

And it’s also a fundamental human right. We can certainly agree that nobody would be willing to live in a society where they could have their thoughts and keep them private or risk persecution. The Christian bible and Koran are books of “hate”. The tons of preachers in the US that preach their garbage about homosexuality being a “choice” and a sin against god – those are lies in a technical sense. And they can be interpreted as hateful, right? Would you suggest that we round up these preachers and burn every bible?

I’m a socialist who believes that healthcare, housing, food, and a living wage are human rights, and any economic system that does not provide these to everyone is unjust. I support radical income redistribution to shrink income inequality to a bare minimum. This is a reasonable position to hold, but an unpopular one in the U.S. The history of Soviet-style communism might be reason enough to make an opinion like mine dangerous. For those people who fought in Vietnam to fight the “spread” of communism, it might be offensive. Would you support the U.S. creating a law that would make it illegal for me to write a stupid book? And more to the point, do you think that anyone would read my idiotic book? If the existence of my book was deemed a threat, it might say a lot about the population’s opinion of capitalism.

Ok, I’m rambling. Sorry. Tired.
Listen, we disagree. Thanks for hearing me out.

@DoNotKnow “If we followed those standards, the hundreds of thousands of books filling books stores in the U.S. would be the last words of people rotting in jail.”

I doubt it. The US does have laws against libel and incitement—which means that people can punished for certain acts of lying and inciting hate—but there are very stringent standards for deploying those laws. This isn’t all that different from the German law, which isn’t actually a ban on Holocaust denial. It’s a ban on incitement of hate, which certain acts of Holocaust denial count as.

“Using those standards, nearly every Christian in the U.S. would be in facing persecution – unless they were silent about their Christianity.”

Wow. Yeah, sure. Nearly every Christian in the US is a lying sack of frothing hate. It couldn’t possibly be just the squeaky wheels. That would be far too consistent with the actual evidence. ~

@DoNotKnow America probably has one of the broadest definitions of freedom of speech in the world; it is part of our founding. We have never been as socialized as you describe, I have a feeling it’s difficult to get that combination. I want socialized healthcare. I also want wealth to be distributed better, but not to the extreme you are talking about.

Where do you live? What state?

My extended attempts at explaining the concept of free speech has apparently resulted in more confusion, as the pushback is now focused on strange interpretations of the particulars in my bad examples. sorry.

I’m not sure that I can move on from here. Thanks everyone.

^ My extended attempts at explaining the concept of free speech has apparently resulted in more confusion, as the pushback is now focused on strange interpretations of the particulars in my bad examples.
Well, this is Fluther, and no matter how well you try to put the cookies on a lower shelf, there are some who still can’t find them. Rather than embrace the gist of the question, semantics and details hang people up.

Let’s look at Fluther as a micro nation, if a person cannot say what they feel, even if said comment was not an outright lie, slander, threat of another, etc. because it was unpopular, and the Fluther police/government was able to toss the perp into a cyber-gulag, that would keep other dissidents at bay. What would the danger be to having everyone say critical things of the government? If a dictator allowed unpopular speech of the government (him de facto) others who felt the same way but thought they were alone, now know they aren’t. When the numbers pass a certain point, and enough people know that at least numbers equaling or surpassing the military is in opposition to the government exist they get embolden enough to take over a Tiananmen Square. The more it lingers, the larger the occupation grows until a tipping point happens, the government has to bend to the people or go in there and ride roughshod over the ”dissidents”. Those in occupation are now too visible to the outside media to be silenced by jack boots in the dead of night. If the government rolls in on them, it is a lose-lose situation for them (the government), the outside media catching wind will look on them as brutes; all their might against unarmed civilians. Stronger nations might actually jump in to take them down and save the people pulling off what Amid Chalabi hoped to do in Iraq (well, he did, it just did not work in the end where HE wanted to be installed as the US puppet Prime Minister). Stopping free speech keeps unpopular speech from ever seeing light. Go to North Korea and ask the average person on the street how are things and I bet they will tell you ”great”, but if you ever got out of earshot of the ”minders” the government will have tailing you and dogging your every step, your answer will be far, far different.

Any regulation of free speech is a slippery slope. Since the holocaust did occur, banning any talk that it did not occur appears to be harmless. But what might be next on the list? Talking about climate change (already applied to employees of the Florida government)? Only certain religions are allowed to be discussed? Or perhaps ALL religious speech is banned?

As I believe someone else mentioned, free speech only says that the government cannot imprison you, it does not protect you from being mocked by others, thought to be an idiot, or guarantee that you have to be given a platform to present your ideas. Let everyone have the right to openly express their opinion, and the rest can determine its validity.

The true test to a democracy is how it deals with its minorities.

When the majority of a democracy is out to hurt a minority, then it’s the government’s responsibility to protect that minority.

This is where these kinds of limits to free speech make sense and find their justification. The majority doesn’t need to be protected by law from the consequences of harmful speech. It’s the individual and the minorities that do. That’s why laws against libel and denying the holocaust are not unfair.

When you’ve lost relatives in one of the biggest crimes of the previous century and some else denies there murder that is on par with libel or defamation. The latter is punishable in the U.S. as well and rightfully so.

@Hypocrisy_Central Details matter. That’s where the devil is, after all. If someone gives an example and it’s a bad example, then they’ve made a bad argument. And I don’t think we should be convinced by bad arguments.

^ Details matter. That’s where the devil is, after all. If someone gives an example and it’s a bad example, then they’ve made a bad argument.
Swing a dead squirrel in any direction you will hit faulty details that has been presented, it’s just people want to filter which details they find acceptable even when the logic could not fight itself out of a wet paper bag with an ice pick.

@Hypocrisy_Central – My later examples were bad, and they were the result of me entertaining some of the questions that were not necessarily meaningful in the context of this discussion. I let the conversation get away, and therefore it’s not no longer coherent. Once we identified the seed of our differences (I’m a civil libertarian, some people here are not), I should have just left it there. There are no further hypotheticals needed because we have a real case – holocaust denial laws. These stand on their own.

I think that for the most part, my positions were not misrepresented and the discourse was fairly civil (after an initial miscommunication and confusion). So, I’m ok with just disagreeing on this issue.

True, I guess I regard myself more of a social democrat. I think people need protecting from themselves to a very small degree. I don’t believe people always make the most common sense decision or are rational 100% of the time when they make choices. If they were, the Holocaust never would never have happened in the first place. And change is difficult when laws are made to alter the structures of a society based on falsehoods. Germany had to make a huge mental shift when they lost the war. It certainly doesn’t change attitudes or what is in people’s hearts. There was and is still a huge social problem following the abolition of slavery in the US. The migration of millions of Muslims into Europe due to extremism and civil war in their own countries is putting all sorts of pressure here, too. We have only two synagogues in Norway. I have exactly one Jewish friend here. She has to stand up to her children’s school all the time because they practice Christian rituals at Christmas and Easter. We have that in common, because I’m a secularist and I guess she is too. There are clashes of cultures, regardless of the laws on the books. I don’t apologies for putting the cookie jar up high. Understanding social dynamics like this isn’t and should be simplified. Making an effort to understand cultures and history is important. There are more than 7 billion of us on the planet now and it is getting crowded and noisy. The ability to communicate is instant now. Communicating propaganda and hate speech is just as easy, or easier because of the emotive concepts, than learning about history and current culture. A society taking a small measure to collectively say, ‘Hey, that’s not ok.’ doesn’t look like a slippery slope to me unless there are more than two points to draw from. Slippery slopes are what happens when people aren’t paying attention. Apathy waxes the slope. There are loads of examples of actual slippery slopes, like banking laws, sentencing laws and protection of privacy that are real and civil libertarians have their work cut out there.

@whitenouse I don’t know if in America anyone can be sued for denying the Holocaust. I’ve never heard of the law covering it. I don’t think libel covers it here. Maybe there have been legal cases I am unaware of.

I do agree it is the government’s responsibility to protect the minority.

@JLeslie No, I don’t think that exists in the US. And I don’t think you can sue someone for denying the way an ancestor died in the US either. Defamation has to be shown to cause the person some sort of monetary harm.

And that would be a civil and not a criminal suit that would need to be brought by a person feeling wronged. Quite different from ‘criminalising’ the disemination of hate speech, which is where the people of Germany feel denying the Holocaust ever happened, falls into.

I didn’t (want to) imply that there are U.S. laws that are anti-holicaust denial. What I said is that they are in line with libel and defamation laws.

However… one could look at the law against holocaust denial as an anti-defamation law. In this case protecting the holocaust victims from people people making false statements that would be insulting.

There are nine U.S. states (Idaho, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead. Likely they could be used when someone denies the holocaust, not sure if it has been tried.

Wow. Defamation of the dead. That sounds very interesting. it also sounds like a really good metal band name