The West- Free Speech Hypocrites

dlofnep wrote: »

While I accept that many countries have certain legislation which is counter to true freedom of speech, I don't accept that an attack on Islam could be construed as an attack on Muslims. If someone criticises the fact that Muhammad had sex with a child, that is their right to do so. This is not an attack on Muslims. An attack on Muslims would be something that specifically targets them as a collective of people - IE: Stating that all Muslims as terrorists, and harassing Muslims on the streets, throwing a myriad of insults at them.

There are many issues that need to be unrestricted in freedom of speech, and freedom to criticises or satirise religion is one of them. I agree that if people wish to reject the holocaust, they should have the right to do so - even if their views are completely without merit. I see it as no different than the wackos in the conspiracy forum, who think that lizards are running the world.

America generally gets it right on freedom of speech most of the time, Europe - less so.

I think the holocaust is really a special case though and denial of it is only punishable in certain countries. It is in recent living memory and the laws making it illegal to deny it were more an attempt to ensure Germans did not forgot what the nazis did.

dlofnep wrote: »

America generally gets it right on freedom of speech most of the time, Europe - less so.

Actually very true.

I don't see the double standard OP. Maybe that's because I don't want to see it you'll say.

From what I understand the recent (so called anti Islamic <I didn't see it and don't want to see it>) movie was made by a man who wasn't interested in freedom of expression, rather a guy with a strong anti Islamic bias.


from the William Saletan quote:

The Netherlands bans anything that “verbally or in writing or
image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their
religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical,
psychological or mental handicap.”

Does he think it should be ok to be cruel and insulting to the handicapped?

His reference to EU countries in relation to the US issue of freedom of speech is misleading and confusing.

OP: for you to talk about President 'there are no gays in Iran' Ahmedinejad reduces the effectiveness of your argument imo.


I suggest that most of the people who protested in the recent whipped up movie controversy have no interest in freedom of exression or free speech and whether a double standard exists between east and west, or between Islamic and non Islamic countries.

I suggest that most of the people protesting hadn't even seen the movie that they were in the name of protesting against and denouncing.

One of the poster slogans reported widely from the London protest read "America - Get Out Of Muslim Lands".

Freedom of expression indeed.

Gbear wrote: »

Did not forget? That's simply nonsense. How on earth would they forget such a thing? How on earth would anyone else in Europe let them forget? They don't need to enshrine it in law. That kind of stain on a country looks after itself.

There are neo-nazis in Germany and elsewhere as well as others who question whether the holocaust happened. Sounds like some people are forgetting. I'd prefer if denial wasn't enshrined in German law and wackos were dealt with in another way but the German law does not make us hypocritical for demanding freedom of speech to criticise religion.

It seems to be the natural order of things for humans to gravitate towards authoritarianism. We can't just leave people alone. We feel we have to control how they think. It doesn't matter what beliefs we have or how well founded they are - we keep trying to force them on other people.

I don't believe in that. I believe in the integrity of each human being to make their own path and make their own belief system.

That's all lovely and flowery but when a child walks into the road I'm sure you'll be forcing your knowledge of the rules of the road on them, or should they like learn from their own mistakes and make their own way? The progression of society involves the passage of information. People showing others how to do things and how to think. But sure let your child learn about nutrition by chiding his own food. When he eats rat poison sure that'll teach him.

The fact of the matter is that you don't need to force people towards these things. Give them an ability to reason and the information and overwhelmingly they'll see that not only is holocaust denial insane bull****, but so too is thinking the moon landing was a hoax and that racism is a good idea.
The truth will out. Always. How could it be any other way?
Bull**** lies in an unstable state of equilibrium.

Yeah humans don't engage in superstition or any other 'bull****' like that. We are all just so sensible.

Is your argument that freedom of speech should have no limits or do you accept some laws against libel, slander incitement to hate and defamation?

I can't remember the name of it but there's a concept in law where you must give valid reasons to make something illegal in the first place.
When laws are inherited from less enlightened times - for example, the criminalisation of homosexuality, which I think was in place in Ireland until the late 80's, there seems to be an acceptance by those trying to get it repealed that they have to be the ones to make the case for it's removal.

That is completely getting the burden of proof arseways. There is no good reason to ban homosexuality. I shouldn't have to even make any argument other than that when arguing for it's repeal.

I think the same thing has occurred with the abridging of certain forms of freedom of speech. I think people decided that they didn't like racists and that was it. On a political level, opposing it gets you branded a racist. We don't have the strength of the US constitution (which I think is the best constitution, even if the US seems to fail to do it justice at times) to fall back on.

So with any freedom of speech issue I want to see a valid reason given for it being in existence. That we have laws against holocaust denial is no reason to shift the burden of proof in any rational debate.

We should look at it from being free of all laws as a starting point and then start adding them as necessary.
Starting from a position of tyranny and then adding rights and removing restrictions is going about it backwards but that's the way things have tended to go in practice because most of the world was despotic at some point.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally different about freedom in the West. We've just moved further along in shedding tyranny.
The US is a bit different because it was created in a somewhat systematic manner. They didn't have thousands of years of bull**** to contend with. They started fresh. Because they started fresh about 300 years ago they've still had time to amass some backwards horse**** in their law but I still think they're in a better position from a legal and constitutional standpoint.

Laminations wrote: »

Sounds like some people are forgetting. I'd prefer if denial wasn't enshrined in German law and wackos were dealt with in another way but the German law does not make us hypocritical for demanding freedom of speech to criticise religion.

I disagree.
There will always be outliers but the better educated people get the further the collective mindset of a country will gravitate towards rationality.

I doubt we have any real culture of Neo-Nazism in this country. That doesn't mean that we don't have our own collection of ignorant racists.
They identify with Nazism in Germany because it has a history there but I don't see that as being any more of a problem than the BNP in Brtain or whatever our own equivalent is.

As such, I don't care if it makes "more sense" to ban holocaust denial than mocking religion. In both cases I think there's no reason to ban them so the differences are trivial.

Laminations wrote: »

That's all lovely and flowery but when a child walks into the road I'm sure you'll be forcing your knowledge of the rules of the road on them, or should they like learn from their own mistakes and make their own way? The progression of society involves the passage of information. People showing others how to do things and how to think. But sure let your child learn about nutrition by chiding his own food. When he eats rat poison sure that'll teach him.

Children are fundamentally different from adults.

Laminations wrote: »

Yeah humans don't engage in superstition or any other 'bull****' like that. We are all just so sensible.

As levels of education increase levels of religion decrease. There's a clear contrast between states in the US that illustrates that point.
I think we're already fixing that problem with educating more people.

I don't think the problem with religion in the US* is down to anything other than the lack of social mobility and quality and availability of education for everyone.
I think that principle applies to anything that's based on nonsense. Conspiracy theories, nazism, ludditeism, etc. don't stand up to critical appraisal. If you give people the tools to deal with these notions from an early age they're overwhelmingly going to be able to take them in, digest them, and spit them back out as nonsense.

*(I'd like to point out that I'm specifically talking about "intrusive" religion in the US - that which is preventing equal rights to gays and is trying to hamstring education by forcing creationism into classrooms - that's the "problem with religion in the US" that I was referring to).

Laminations wrote: »

Is your argument that freedom of speech should have no limits or do you accept some laws against libel, slander incitement to hate and defamation?

To make a long story short, I'm not sure about libel, slander or defamation of a person.
I'm not sure how a right to a good name works in the context of freedom of speech but I'm perfectly open to it and it seems reasonable that it trumps it. I'm happy to accept them for the moment.

I don't think "incitement to hatred" should be legislated against.
For starters, I think it's meaningless. Whether I say, "eat mango chutney" or "all black people are stupid" and you cite either as a cause to go shoot a black civil rights activist - my words weren't the problem. Your insanity and/or stupidity are the problem.
I think that we already have ways to combat ignorance and doubling down on it at the expense of freedom of expression is a very bad thing and ultimately redundant anyway.


I think you should need a reaaalllly good reason to ban any speech. I don't see "hate speech" being good enough.