Is there free speech in Belfast?

[The Grand Nudger]

Unless I've got some of that social privilege to cash in (which I do)..after all..we did "bomb them", eh?  

I get where you're coming from btw Abaris, I don't like that extending this freedom can sometimes lead to ugly results, but I also don;t like the ugly results when that same freedom is rescinded or not present.  A person arguing that we should rise up against our evil oppressors and fight back is, technically, inciting violence through hate speech.  In a world in which the Klansman can be prosecuted for his words, so can the man who finds himself on the wrong end of an oppressive regimes shitlist.

[Dystopia]

Unless I've got some of that social privilege to cash in (which I do)..after all..we did "bomb them", eh?  

I get where you're coming from btw Abaris, I don't like that extending this freedom can sometimes lead to ugly results, but I also don;t like the ugly results when that same freedom is rescinded or not present.  A person arguing that we should rise up against our evil oppressors and fight back is, technically, inciting violence through hate speech.  In a world in which the Klansman can be prosecuted for his words, so can the man who finds himself on the wrong end of an oppressive regimes shitlist.

I don't see that as hate speech, but then again I'm not supporting the prosecution of mere speech but when your words inspire someone to commit material damage against other people - If I incentive people to form a guerrilla and fight against X or Y, should I be blameless when I'm pretty much the anchor of the organization? When taken to the limit, crime lords can't be arrested as long as they didn't personally commit any of the crimes - After all, no one is forcing the soldier to obey, right?

[abaris]

A person arguing that we should rise up against our evil oppressors and fight back is, technically, inciting violence through hate speech.

Yes, that crossed my mind also. That's why I deleted the second part of my post before I hit the reply button. But it's walking a fine line. For me it's crossed when someone has a group of followers and actually calls for killing another group or individual.

[The Grand Nudger]

I get that -you- don;t...but what -you- see as hate speech and what any given state might determine to -be- hate speech aren't always the same, eh>?   Europe is full of hate speech laws that, to me...don't seem to have much to do with hate speech, for example.

If you form a resistance then you're at least partially responsible, sure, and an oppressive state could use hate speech laws to silence you on that count.  It provides a tool for "less than ethical" authorities to deem whatever is not in their interests "hate speech".  That's all.

That is the case, often enough, with crime lords or even military commanders.  We don't hold people uniformly responsible for the actions of their underlings, nor should we. That doesn't prevent us from holding them responsible in some particular case, some particular action.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps a more mundane scenario might help to simplfy the discussion?  If we got some nutball who came onto these boards and started babling about how evil gays were, and how a good person should "remove them" from this world....and some -other- nutball, lurking on these boards, went out and followed that advice......I;m going to point the "murderer" finger at the second nutball, not the first.  No one;s getting away that easily with me.

"Oh, but he was so convincing!" - Bullshit, you're a murderous nutball, that has nothing to do with that other -loudmouthed- nutball.

People use the example of Hitler often enough in this conversations, but Hitler didn't make any of that shit happen, no more so than nutball 1 above. I think it's a huge mistake to think that the will of the german people didn't -include- the holocaust and WW2. He wasn't -inciting- anything, he was holding up a mirror. I think it's a mistake to think that the people who voice an opinion are the source -of- that opinion. I think it's a mistake to think that this "hate speech" business is a free lunch, that it can't be used to precisely the same end, by all of the "Little Hitlers" in life. I find hate speech as distasteful as you, mind you...I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing on that count, but I also think it's an oily, oily term (even my own ideas of what constitutes hate speech could hardly be said to be demonstrably true, more than just my opinion). I've been told more than once that my opinion of christianity is hate speech......lol. Inciting to violence is in a similar position. My government has a history of accusing it;s opponents of inciting violence for no other reason than to provide the pretext required to act against them, something they'd planned regardless......

[abaris]

People use the example of Hitler often enough in this conversations, but Hitler didn't make any of that shit happen, no more so than nutball 1 above.   It's a huge mistake to think that the will of the german people didn't -include- the holocaust and WW2.  He wasn't -inciting- anything, he was holding up a mirror.  It;s a mistake to think that the people who voice an opinion are the source -of- that opinion.

Well, that misses the mark by a thousand miles. Most of the German people were indifferent and much too concerned with their own survival and safety to care one way or the other. They weren't murderous but cowards, but I don't want to sound judgmental, since I don't know what I would do under the same circumstances.

The European laws actually differ very much when it comes to hate speech. Some more liberal, some more oppressive, as is shown with the case on hand.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not being judgemental either, people do strange shit....but cowardice....take a look at those clips again.  They were positively -excited-...and why not, they'd become a world power effectively overnight, and had cast off the ruinous treaty of versailles.......  shrugs.  Sure, towards the end, there was alot more fear than excitement, because all of those structures which they thought were on their side had, effectively, been turned against them one after another and become the machines by which their demise was assured.  Sure, sure, there would have been some who lived in constant fear, that's the narrative of the jewish community, for example....but are you really willing to argue that the german nation didn;t eagerly set out to accomplish it;s given task? Their success would be difficult to explain, if they were all just going through the motions. I'm suggesting that "hate speech" can go south...just like that.

If you ever find yourself accused by the state of inciting violence through hate speech after having spoken out against the state...as people have very often found themselves, don't say no one warned you...lol.

How many jews do you think the Nazis executed for "inciting violence" in the workcamps and deathcamps? A fair few, I'd imagine. Probably had a solid justification, in their minds, for having done so too....hmn....if a jew had unkind words about the fuhrer and the reich....I imagine many supporters of the fuhrer would be quick to call it "hate speech" ........in fact, they still do....

Personally, I'd prefer those folks out in the open, loudly saying whatever nonsense rattles through their heads. It beats having them skulk around plotting in basements and private meetings....after all....that's how Bad Shit™ happens.

-and again, just so there's no confusion, I'm not suggesting that hate speech is kosher, I'm suggesting that it isn't something that we should see as particularly actionable from a legal perspective, same with "inciting violence". The crowd at a UFC event is "inciting violence"...............

[abaris]

I'm not being judgemental either, people do strange shit....but cowardice....take a look at those clips again.  They were positively -excited-...and why not, they'd become a world power effectively overnight, and had cast off the ruinous treaty of versailles.......  shrugs.

Yes, but they didn't stand for outright killing the jews. There's a reason why Hitler didn't make that public. A portion, however large, were OK with removing them from the public eye, but they didn't think of murder. As is shown by Himmler's speech at Posen in october of 1943. He was adressing SS-Leaders and made it very clear that secrecy was warranted. Speech with subtitles can be found on youtube.

People knew or at least suspected. They knew what concentration camps stood for and they heard the testimonies of soldiers on leave. But they turned a blind eye, partly because they were afraid, partly because they didn't want to know, partly because of both. That's the textbook definition of cowardice, but again, not being in that kind of situation, who am I to judge.

[The Grand Nudger]

-And partly because they believed in the reich.....don't leave that out. In any case, you're focusing on the end of the engagement, when fear, paranoia, and generall disillusionment were starting to calcify. Inciting violence does not have to include murder.......nor does accepting or agreeing with violence have to include murder - nor, btw, were the jews "murdered". That was a sticking point in later warcrimes. The nazis "incited violence" long before they stoked the first oven.....

-they were okay with it, all of that violence, as a nation....until they weren't, and they didn't stop being okay with it when the smoke started to smell like people. Some are still okay with it (even the peoplesmoke), and now there's a diaspora of wannabe nazis who are even -more- okay with it than their predecessors.

Driving these people underground won't achieve my dream scenario, in which this idea just dies, it's gone, no one holds to it. It just makes -that- task harder. It teaches them to be clandestine (which is far more dangerous) - and it doesn't stop them from gathering in their homes, privately, to talk about how much better the world would be if all the jews were dead...I promise you.

[abaris]

-And partly because they believed in the reich.....don't leave that out.  Inciting violence does not have to include murder.......nor does accepting or agreeing with violence have to include murder.

Well, believing in the Reich is kind of included in don't want to know. Because of how much their personal life improved, at least in their imagination, which certainly didn't include a world war. For cynical reference see Göring quote in the Gustave Gilbert accounts of Nuremberg.

the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Sound familiar for everyone having listened to the Bushite bullshit, doesn't it?