(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: We've already had this discussion, I don't care about the American concept of freedom of expression... I have my own.

Which is root of the problem. Who gets to decide where someone else's rights begin and end? The government? The group with the most eloquent speaker? The one with the best lawyers? The most bombs?

I don't want anyone else deciding for me, what I can or cannot say, write or think. It's Orwellian. Sure, others can say, "hey dumbshit! That's a stupid idea and here's why!" Have at it. But to restrict as a matter of law is too much.

FatAndFaithless - There are crimes that directly criminalize speech - For example defamation, or psychological domestic violence that usually implies using one's speech to coerce and degrade the other part.

Secondly, a restriction is not censorship, all rights are restricted and restrict each other mutually. For example, the right to live is a lot more important than free speech - It is, it's in my constitution, because without life all other rights become effortlessly - If free speech is used to incentive people to take others lives, or to engage in violent acts of torture, physical aggression, etc, then my judgement as a law student is that free speech must be restricted for more important rights. Also, it's not the government or any government that decides, it's in the fucking constitution, this includes not only Portugal, but France, Germany, etc... Specially Germany.

Thirdly, what matters here is discussing where the line between what should be allowed and not stands. It's not going to change to say "Europe should do like the US" - The problem is that there are criminal acts I repulse compared to others I don't. For example, I certainly don't support burning a quran being illegal, or publicly criticizing a religion.

(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: We've already had this discussion, I don't care about the American concept of freedom of expression... I have my own.

And I profoundly disagree with it.

(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Also, if I'm not mistaken, censorship implies "correcting" what was done before or after it factually happened, making it "right" - In the case of hate speech, no one will censor it directly, no one will delete videos, records or evidence that the speech took part... You will simply be accused of a crime. Forbidding incentive of crimes is not censorship, it's legal decency.

You're mistaken. Prior restraint of speech is censorship. Changing it after the fact is revision.

As for forbidding "incentive of crime" -- I assume you mean inciting them -- well, that's not Holocaust denial; no one is saying, there was no Holocaust, so you should go commit genocide -- and if they did, I'd be fine with the government taking action. Indeed, here in America, threatening to kick someone's ass is a crime, called simple assault, and I think that's valid. However -- "I hate whites" is hate speech, but it doesn't urge any action on anyone. You're conflating the two issues. Of course, if someone said "let's kill all the Jews" I would be in favor of taking action against that speaker.

(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Regardless, I admit the line is very thin between what's objectionable or not. I personally am disgusted by blasphemy laws. But I do not support the government taking no action when it comes to active activism on behalf of racism, homophobia, totalitarianism, etc.

So, you don't mind being able to express your views which offend others, but you're against others speaking views which offend you?

(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Here is my justification in a quote of an author:

Quote: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - Karl Popper”

Except I haven't argued for "unlimited tolerance".

(January 9, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Blackout Wrote: Do you understand, Parkers Tan? sometimes simple rational argument isn't enough to defeat active groups... Sometimes they'll pick guns and engage in a revolution

You need not be condescending, thanks. I'm not sure where you got the idea that being against hate-speech laws means that I'm against taking action to quell violent groups. Would you mind quoting and linking to that post of mine?

(January 9, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Blackout Wrote: FatAndFaithless - There are crimes that directly criminalize speech - For example defamation, or psychological domestic violence that usually implies using one's speech to coerce and degrade the other part.

I don't believe slander is a crime. It is a civil matter, whereby one would have to show material damages occurred and one could then sue for damages. At least in the US; don't know if this holds true elsewhere. Civil not criminal. Let a Muslim show us how saying bad things about Mohamed causes material damages. I'll wait.

As for domestic violence - I doubt you could be arrested for yelling at your spouse. The moment it turned physical, it would be a crime of course. If your yelling disturbed the neighbors, you could be charged with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. In this case, it is more a matter of conduct, than the content of what you are saying. There is no law against quietly telling your husband he is a worthless no good for nothing womanizer.

Quote:I don't believe slander is a crime. It is a civil matter, whereby one would have to show material damages occurred and one could then sue for damages. At least in the US; don't know if this holds true elsewhere. Civil not criminal. Let a Muslim show us how saying bad things about Mohamed causes material damages. I'll wait.

It is criminal in europe. It doesn't, and saying bad things about Mohamed shouldn't be a crime. But saying "hate all Muslims and kill them!", for example, can have bad consequences.

Quote:As for domestic violence - I doubt you could be arrested for yelling at your spouse. The moment it turned physical, it would be a crime of course. If your yelling disturbed the neighbors, you could be charged with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. In this case, it is more a matter of conduct, than the content of what you are saying. There is no law against quietly telling your husband he is a worthless no good for nothing womanizer.

Not that, I'm talking about actual blackmailing, using your position of power (when the other spouse is dependend on you) to coerce trough psychological intimidation and threat. Psychological domestic violence is a crime, and almost always physical comes accompanied by psychological.

I'd like to stress that the only restrictions of free speech I support are absolutely essential ones, such as forbidding free speech that directly incites to violence, hatred, racism, homophobia, religious hate, etc. I do not support higher restriction such as not being able to criticize religion, just like I support people being able to criticize atheists. However, if someone said "all atheists are a danger and should be expelled from society and persecuted", then I'd support criminalizing that behaviour.

I think Europe has taken it too far when it comes to freedom of speech restrictions - This doesn't invalidate that some restrictions are acceptable, but a lot of them aren't.

On the other hand, I don't think states only actively forbid denying the holocaust, I think any mass genocide cannot be positively reinforced trough words, and this includes the holocaust. Another point is that such an act that seems minimal could really offend a jewish person, and I'm talking about people with heavy trauma, PTSD and heavy scars that might with all right have a terrible trigger reaction upon someone devaluing what their people went trough.

Six EU members prohibit Holocaust denial, according to Wiki; two others add Soviet genocides to that specific prohibition; and the others bar denying genocides in general.

What effect do they think denying the holocaust could cause besides making the one who denies it look like a twat?

(January 9, 2015 at 3:17 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What effect do they think denying the holocaust could cause besides making the one who denies it look like a twat?

Not arguing or debating - But - You'd be surprised with far right groups that are currently gaining more votes that genuinely believe the holocaust was a scam - And when they post that opinion, they get likes from some people. In fact, I have relatives who think the holocaust was not that bad.. You should really look at stormfront forum and see how many people from so many countries are there.

The prohibition is not linked to making the person look bad, but protecting hurtful insults at previously persecuted groups. I should say that the holocaust is not Jewish and third reich exclusive, I think we can use the word to describe any mass genocide of any group of people that happened or is happening. I'm a proponent of giving the word a more diverse meaning

(January 9, 2015 at 3:32 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 3:17 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What effect do they think denying the holocaust could cause besides making the one who denies it look like a twat?

Not arguing or debating - But - You'd be surprised with far right groups that are currently gaining more votes that genuinely believe the holocaust was a scam - And when they post that opinion, they get likes from some people. In fact, I have relatives who think the holocaust was not that bad.. You should really look at stormfront forum and see how many people from so many countries are there.

Yes, there are assholes and ignorant people and sensationalists and indoctrinated robots. That doesn't change the fact that simple saying something isn't the problem.

Do you really think the people that "like" that holocaust opinion, like it because someone said it? No, that kind of distorted and unhealthy view of history is far more entrenched and subtle than just stating an opinion.

And "protecting hurtful insults" is an absolutely vacuous and useless basis for doing anything. Literally anything and everything can be interpreted as horrifically offensive or insulting or hurtful.

Seems to me that driving that sort of movement underground would make it that much harder to track.