Europe Must Embrace Free Speech - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2006, 07:58 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The guilt is addressed by having the law and enforcing it.

Can you see why we are uncomfortable with what amounts to a thought crime?

you can not have it both ways

it sounds like you are saying governments should not put controls on what people say or think?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 10:02 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



you can not have it both ways

it sounds like you are saying governments should not put controls on what people say or think?
I was not suggesting the former, just restating what I believe Hiphop was saying.

I agree with you on the later.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 12:20 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
hiphop...I can understand how such laws would make sense in the time immediately after the war. But how much longer will something like that be necessary or relevant?

The KKK may not have a had a major political party, but in a large part of the south, they might as well have. There was a huge amount of sympathy and tolerance (at best) of crimes against blacks and others.

Personally I even have trouble with the concept of "inciting violence" as a crime, but have eventually had to come to the conclusion that while it's not perfect free speech, it's a practical law to protect society. If your lawmakers really believe that laws against hate speech are entirely practical, necessary, relevant etc then I guess they are appropriate. I just wonder if that's the case 60 years later.
In my state, Alabama, no one could get elected governor without getting endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. In 1924 the KKK kept a Catholic, Al Smith, from getting the Democratic Presidential nomination. He got it in 1928 and lost. Does Austria still need anti-Fascist laws? I can understand why decent people wouldn't want this stuff in their back yard, but does it have to be illegal?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 04:45 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Regardless of national image it is still anti-freedom.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 06:12 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Regardless of national image it is still anti-freedom.
And some would argue that certain forms of freedom are bad. I'm not one of them. But like I said I'm not Austrian. If I were I might feel different. It's a cultural gap.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 07:36 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76

It's a cultural gap.
I agree.

I am more comfortable with a justice system that forbids Nazis to act, but does not enforce death penalty or excuse torture.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 07:48 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


And some would argue that certain forms of freedom are bad. I'm not one of them. But like I said I'm not Austrian. If I were I might feel different. It's a cultural gap.
When we start dividing our liberties into positive and negative that is the path of authoritarianism.

Positive Liberty - Peaceful Religious Expression, Speech That Doesn't Offend, Innofensive Art etc.

Negative Liberty - Ruinous Gambling, Drugs, Suicide, Self-Harm, Hate Speech etc.

These are all expressions of liberty - the individual rights to self, some are considered good and some are considered bad. When we start equating liberties with violations of those liberties it is dangerous, how long does it take for the gap to close on free speech, starts with anti-Nazi laws, then anti-Racist laws, then anti-Islamophobic laws, before you know it gay rights groups are getting censure over calling Sharia Law anti-gay.

In an ideal society the individual would be accountable to themselves alone and could excercise whatever liberties they desire without infringing on the rights of others - rights that do not include the right not to be offended.

Punishment within a society is a way of securing rights and enforcing the no-harm principle. The death penalty is the ultimate violation and suspension of rights - the right to exist, however it is excercised against those who have commited the ultimate violation of another individuals rights. While there is room for moral and ethical opposition to this punishment equating a punitive measure against those who violate the no harm principle to one against those who excercise their liberties is in principle wrong. You have elaborated an argument to say that hate speech is wrong because police beat up immigrants. You are correct in that beating up immigrants is wrong, but the cause of that rests exclusively upon the officers and possibly the immigrants (depending on the situation), the violation of the immigrants rights and their personal security by the police is an independent violation. In a courtroom the officer could not lay blame for their excessive use of force upon an anti-immigrant speaker and make them suffer the ultimate punishment. The by-extension argument denies individual responsibility and ascribes actions to outside forces - forces that just happen to be offensive to most peoples sensibilities. Beating up immigrants and speaking out against immigrants/immigration are in my opinion different things and the distinction between liberty and violation of liberty should not be blurred to make the case against free speech.

Hate speech is not an infringement of any other individuals rights, drug use is also not an infringement of other peoples rights, gay marriage is not an infringement other peoples rights. All of these things should be made legal, not celebrated or glorified, but made legal.

Assault, Murder, Theft and Fraud are violations of other peoples rights (rights to personal security and property). They should be met with a proportional deprivation of the offenders liberties, in some societies they deem the death penalty to be the highest punishment, but the reason for the punishment remains the deprivation of another individuals liberty and as such is completely different than excercising the liberty of free speech to say offensive and racist things.

The logic of making hate speech illegal is not consistent with those of free speech. The right to tell people what they do not want to hear is the highest state of affairs and to subvert it in the name of harmony or anti-racism is a form of trading liberty for security.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 07:54 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

a justice system that forbids Nazis to act
What exactly does this mean? There's a difference between preventing Nazis from actively pursuing goals that violate the rights of others, and expressing through speech a doubt in the Holocaust or anti-Semitism. You may say it's a slippery slope, but that justification is a slippery slope in itself, imo.

(by the way, I'm against the death penalty in most cases )
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:03 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
is a form of trading liberty for security.
Exactly. I also agree with most of the rest of your post.

The European reality that you can´t understand is why we are trading free speech liberty for security. We make an exception to free speech, and it is the only exception, here. This does absolutely not mean that our democracy is in danger, and it also doesn´t imply that the state has any right to forbid anything else.

It just makes sense here - 6 millions of victims in concentration camps and +50 millions in WWII. All this dictatorship and the way the propaganda was organized, the way the SS and SA worked -

in that case, a country that was partly resposible for all that, needs to understand that it makes sense to trade liberty for security. If an Australian or American doesn´t understand that, there´s nothing I can do, then there´s the gap verte was talking about. If an Italian can understand it, see above poster,.. ask yourself why? they had Mussolini. They still have the idiot Mussolini daughter or something talking shit in the newspapers. Italians understand because they´ve had the same stuff running in their country.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:04 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:10 PM
double post
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:17 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
What exactly does this mean? There's a difference between preventing Nazis from actively pursuing goals that violate the rights of others, and expressing through speech a doubt in the Holocaust or anti-Semitism. You may say it's a slippery slope, but that justification is a slippery slope in itself, imo.
slippery slope blah blah aside: after the horror of the holocaust you don´t need any justification for forbidding Nazis to spread their hate speech. hate speech can inspire other people to get active, therefore it´s dangerous enough. however, you are free to say everything you want, including hate speeches in Austria -there´s just one exception, the hailing of national socialism in any form in any case.

you can argue that wearing a svastika doesn´t physically hurt anyone. and so what? not with us; not here. throw the Nazis into our - very humane - prisons if they have the nerve to lie about the holocaust goes fine with an overwhelming majority of our society.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:24 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Might makes right
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:41 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Might makes right
you´re free to organize a free willy demo

n make sure to take Brendan and BBC with you - they will be delighted http://www.brendanoneill.net/
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 07:36 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


slippery slope blah blah aside: after the horror of the holocaust you don´t need any justification for forbidding Nazis to spread their hate speech. hate speech can inspire other people to get active, therefore it´s dangerous enough. however, you are free to say everything you want, including hate speeches in Austria -there´s just one exception, the hailing of national socialism in any form in any case.

you can argue that wearing a svastika doesn´t physically hurt anyone. and so what? not with us; not here. throw the Nazis into our - very humane - prisons if they have the nerve to lie about the holocaust goes fine with an overwhelming majority of our society.
The slippery slope argument is critical to the maintenance of liberty.

If Austria is willing to jail speak or think differently on this issue, what is to stop them from jailing supporters of the death penalty? Or supporters of the war in Iraq? Or those who teach Scripture from a conservative perspective?

After dwelling on this issue, it seems that the response to a history of fascism is to use a little dose of fascism today.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 01:04 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Perhaps Austrians think that it's a form of "letting it happen again" to tolerate Nazi ideas being promoted in public. After all, "never again" is something we all agree on--unless you're a Nazi.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com