European Politics

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
My point was that you're openly criticising European so called "free speech", while "free speech" in the US has just as many (but sometimes different) qualifications to it i.e. ultimate "free speech" (no consequences) doesn't exist anywhere in the world, not even in the West. It just makes discussion slightly difficult when it's not clear what exactly you mean by "free speech".
Click to expand...


I think speech is too restricted here as well, but it is more restricted in Europe. There is nothing in the US that can get you arrested unless there is an action (an action that would get you arrested no matter if you said anything or not).

I can go to a mall right now and deny the Holocaust, call Mulsims/Catholics/Baptists whatever I want, really anything with no threat of legal action. I would be an idiot, but I would not be arrested for being an idiot.
 
bearfan said:
It is not inciting violence but imminent violence. Which is an important distinction.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm used to the phrase "inciting a riot" as meaning the riot actually has to happen. Like you said, action has to happen. Words themselves are never illegal here, only their consequences. (Although releasing classified government info is an exception to that, it's a crime just to do it, regardless of consequences.)
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Right. I'm used to the phrase "inciting a riot" as meaning the riot actually has to happen. Like you said, action has to happen. Words themselves are never illegal here, only their consequences. (Although releasing classified government info is an exception to that, it's a crime just to do it, regardless of consequences.)
Click to expand...


Exactly, the riot has to happen, but it also has to happen at a close time and proximity to the speech. You cannot say something a guy said yesterday in Pittsburgh caused a riot in Detroit today.
 
So, how (as Foro also asked) does that work with racism? If you racially insult someone & neither party (or any other party) physically does anything, then this is legal? Yes/no? But if the person you racially abuse reacts violently? --does this move into the realm of being illegal... on your part?
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
So, how (as Foro also asked) does that work with racism? If you racially insult someone & neither party (or any other party) physically does anything, then this is legal? Yes/no? But if the person you racially abuse reacts violently? --does this move into the realm of being illegal... on your part?
Click to expand...

I would not think so ... the person in trouble is the one who committed the violent act. The fact that they were provoked might limit or in rare cases eliminate their culpability. See the sticks and stones theory.

Edit
If you racially insult someone & neither party (or any other party) physically does anything, then this is legal? Yes/no

yes, 100% legal, as IMO it should be.
 
I understand the "sticks & stones" theory, I'm just curious as to whether US law (in general) holds to this in respect to your (& many other, I'm sure) definition of "free speech". But basically the answer is yes; you can racially abuse & insult people & this isn't a crime in the US?
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I understand the "sticks & stones" theory, I'm just curious as to whether US law (in general) holds to this in respect to your (& many other, I'm sure) definition of "free speech". But basically the answer is yes; you can racially abuse & insult people & this isn't a crime in the US?
Click to expand...

Yes, and of course that has ramifications beyond people saying nasty things as laws restricting speech in the past have been used to prevent people from expressing opinions against the government, for rights for minorities, gays, people prosecuted for blasphemy.

I think you might be missing the point that it the right that is critical, the actual content is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.

I just find it odd that there have been all these statements in favor of free speech and within days 50+ people are rounded up for stating an opposing view to popular opinion.
 
bearfan said:
I think you might be missing the point that it the right that is critical, the actual content is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.

I just find it odd that there have been all these statements in favor of free speech and within days 50+ people are rounded up for stating an opposing view to popular opinion.
Click to expand...
And I think you are missing the point if you think I (or anyone else here) doesn't understand this. I'm just making the point that this "freedom of speech" they talk about isn't the freedom of speech you're talking about; and throwing the term around (without qualification) as if we're all talking about the same thing isn't helpful. News outlets don't appear to want, or have the time, to tease out the nuanced differences that we have briefly covered in discussing it here.

You are perfectly right to point out the contradiction here, though.
 
Short summary: In the US: every speech is speech, and people do not "care" (at least their law doesn't pay attention to it) about discrimination voiced in words, and at least as important: they don't give a s*it about consequences.

In Europe: we make differentiation between kinds of speech. So does law.
We all know how violence against certain groups started, e.g. earlier in the 20st century. It started with hatespeech. WWII? Hatespeech. Apparently this made a bigger mark in Europe than in the States.
 
Forostar said:
Short summary: In the US: every speech is speech, and people do not "care" (at least their law doesn't pay attention to it) about discrimination voiced in words, and at least as important: they don't give a s*it about consequences.

In Europe: we make differentiation between kinds of speech. So does law.
We all know how violence against certain groups started, e.g. earlier in the 20st century. It started with hatespeech. WWII? Hatespeech. Apparently this made a bigger mark in Europe than in the States.
Click to expand...


Perhaps we value open discussion more than "I do not like what you said .. off to jail"
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
And I think you are missing the point if you think I (or anyone else here) doesn't understand this. I'm just making the point that this "freedom of speech" they talk about isn't the freedom of speech you're talking about; and throwing the term around (without qualification) as if we're all talking about the same thing isn't helpful. News outlets don't appear to want, or have the time, to tease out the nuanced differences that we have briefly covered in discussing it here.

You are perfectly right to point out the contradiction here, though.
Click to expand...


It is a shame they do not, that would be an actual service to the public.
 
I certainly agree with bearfan that there is a potential contradiction here. Some people in Europe clearly do believe we have US-like freedom of speech, when in fact it's a little more complicated than that. And, in addition, don't seem to see the contradiction here: of supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to ridicule Muslims/Islam (if that is in fact what they were doing) on the one hand; but denying people the right to say anything insensitive after all these killings have happened (as has happened) on the other. (Although, I have to point out, I haven't really looked in detail at the arrests that have been discussed.)
bearfan said:
It is a shame they do not, that would be an actual service to the public.
Click to expand...
Indeed it would. But that might be expecting a little too much, bearfan! :p
 
I have never denied the contradiction. But one should look at it in a more subtle way.
Hebdo ridicule everything and everyone, not just Muslims/Islam. Still, a law can decide how discriminating it is.
 
What does it matter? That depends on (what happened with) the individual. What matters to an individual can be influenced by a combination of indoctrination and what else happened in their (social) life experience. It can also be influenced by hatespeech.

In Europe several imams have been thrown out of the country because they incite hate. In the US they say whatever they want, and individuals can belief they'd do the right thing if they'd bomb the Twin Towers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top