Europe Must Embrace Free Speech - Page 4 - 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 01-09-2006, 01:07 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
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.
A "never again" argument could be used to lock up all militant imans. Is that really a good standard?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 01:22 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


A "never again" argument could be used to lock up all militant imans. Is that really a good standard?
I'm not saying I agree with the Austrian law. I'm just trying to figure out how people who believe in democracy can support this sort of limitation. Yes, it could be used to lock up all militant imans.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 06:43 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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?
We live in a democracy. For something totally unrealistic like that to happen - yet it is possible - parties or political representatives would have to introduce a new law, which would have to get passed by the parliament. Since there are no Nazis in the Parliament (at least not officially) and the Communists are far from having any serious influence, I doubt any party would want to introduce such a law. Also, the majority of Austrians would be against it. Since this may be against our constitution, probably the human rights or some other laws (like I said. we have free speech with this very one exception) it is near to impossible for such things to be proposed in Parliament - and a 2/3rd majority of Austrians would have to agree if this includes an ever so slight change of the constitution. Plus there would be serious problems with the EU who wouldn´t appreciate Austria going back into stoneage (where Turkey still resides).

I think in the U.S. the democratic process is relatively similar.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 06:53 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Yes, it could be used to lock up all militant imans.
Not in Austria though. ..see my previous post.

When we start comparing 9/11 to WWII and the Nazis by comparing holocaust deniers to militant imams (congratulations, nbcrusader!) it gets very clear that one doesn´t have the slightest idea what I´m talking about when I try to explain the Austrian view. Hello, can we stay a little reasonable historically or is this asked too much?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 07:30 PM   #50
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Townsville, QLD, Australia
Posts: 48
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Some things don't need to be said.
__________________
Otokonoko is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 07:43 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:10 AM
In Austria today is there more of a potential threat from Nazis or Islamic Extremists?

The answer is apparently Nazis because the right has political influence and there are racists out there.

I still think that having laws against holocaust denial (a premise that can be proved wrong with the facts) and hate speech are essentially infringing on the liberty of free expression. Free speech is by definition unfettered so it is a lie to declare that the country has unlimited free speech when saying certain things (no matter how vile) will get you locked up.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 07:50 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


We live in a democracy. For something totally unrealistic like that to happen - yet it is possible - parties or political representatives would have to introduce a new law, which would have to get passed by the parliament. Since there are no Nazis in the Parliament (at least not officially) and the Communists are far from having any serious influence, I doubt any party would want to introduce such a law. Also, the majority of Austrians would be against it. Since this may be against our constitution, probably the human rights or some other laws (like I said. we have free speech with this very one exception) it is near to impossible for such things to be proposed in Parliament - and a 2/3rd majority of Austrians would have to agree if this includes an ever so slight change of the constitution. Plus there would be serious problems with the EU who wouldn´t appreciate Austria going back into stoneage (where Turkey still resides).

I think in the U.S. the democratic process is relatively similar.
That's the point - the law that put David Irving in jail could become the law that puts other in jail for other thoughts and words. That is why we don't place prior restraints on speech through majority votes.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:36 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


We live in a democracy. For something totally unrealistic like that to happen - yet it is possible - parties or political representatives would have to introduce a new law, which would have to get passed by the parliament. Since there are no Nazis in the Parliament (at least not officially) and the Communists are far from having any serious influence, I doubt any party would want to introduce such a law. Also, the majority of Austrians would be against it. Since this may be against our constitution, probably the human rights or some other laws (like I said. we have free speech with this very one exception) it is near to impossible for such things to be proposed in Parliament - and a 2/3rd majority of Austrians would have to agree if this includes an ever so slight change of the constitution. Plus there would be serious problems with the EU who wouldn´t appreciate Austria going back into stoneage (where Turkey still resides).

I think in the U.S. the democratic process is relatively similar.

OK, I get it. You're not going to tell a priest he can't endorse Opus Dei or oppose contraception, you're just going to tell him he can't preach Nazism. The problem I have with this is Nazism and racism are intertwined. How much of this stuff is also illegal? This idea is so alien to Americans, we would call it censorship.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:36 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
That's the point - the law that put David Irving in jail could become the law that puts other in jail for other thoughts and words.
For a European, this is a completely American thought. For us, it would be exaggerated and scary to assume that just because one thing is forbidden others could be too.. to put any other restrictions on free speech is totally out of question.

So I have to disagree with you. The law that put Irving in jail can not becaome the law that puts others in jail for other thoughts and words. It´s not a precendent or anything.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:53 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
OK, I get it. You're not going to tell a priest he can't endorse Opus Dei or oppose contraception, you're just going to tell him he can't preach Nazism.
exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
The problem I have with this is Nazism and racism are intertwined. How much of this stuff is also illegal? This idea is so alien to Americans, we would call it censorship.
That´s a good point. Indeed, instead of discussing that specific Austrian law, it would be much more interesting to discuss issues of racism in Austria.

Racism is not illegal. As bad as it is, I would not want racist speech to be illegal. Racist action, i.e. beating up Africans, is illegal, but will be ... kinda overlooked. Like I have mentioned elsewhere, the Austrian police has a bad reputation for killing Africans. This is a big problem in Austria, not that this jerk Irving still serves his time in jail.

I agree that banning Nazi speech is censorship. You still don´t think America would censor such dangerous speech if WW II had happened in NY, in LA, in Texas? WW II caused 50 millions of deaths. Multiply 9/11 with 10,000 if you want to compare. Go ahead.

See, it is not imaginable, it is not comparable, what happened in Europe is a holocaust of such incredible dimensions that all standards fail miserably. This is why you maybe need to be European to fully understand that exception to free speech.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 09:51 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

See, it is not imaginable, it is not comparable, what happened in Europe is a holocaust of such incredible dimensions that all standards fail miserably. This is why you maybe need to be European to fully understand that exception to free speech.
Yeah. You'll notice that none of the people who disagree with you on this are European.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-09-2006, 10:19 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:10 AM
Yes. Still I have the feeling that even if you don´t agree with me, you can understand why.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 01:12 AM   #58
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Townsville, QLD, Australia
Posts: 48
Local Time: 08:10 AM
I can see where it is coming from (I think!). I don't know if I agree with any sort of censorship or not, because I can say what I want. But then again, I don't live somewhere where inflammatory words have killed millions. I guess it is like censoring child porn - each society has to make its own choices about what they do and don't want their people to see, hear, say or do.

Oh dear, I am going to be crucified for saying that.
__________________
Otokonoko is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 01:27 AM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Child pornography by definition involves exploitation of a minor and a violation of their liberties. Hate speech is offensive and vile, but it is an expression of liberty nontheless and it in itself does not infringe upon anybody elses freedoms.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-10-2006, 01:39 AM   #60
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Townsville, QLD, Australia
Posts: 48
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Child pornography by definition involves exploitation of a minor and a violation of their liberties. Hate speech is offensive and vile, but it is an expression of liberty nontheless and it in itself does not infringe upon anybody elses freedoms.
What I am getting at, though, is that it is up to individual societies to determine their own values. We abhor child porn, Austrians abhor hate speech. When Murrandoo Yanner called on the Palm Islanders to go out and kill a cop after Cameron Doomadgee's death, he was speaking from a point of view of hatred, and he was encouraging the violation of liberties. He got away with that one, although the Police Union wanted him to be done for inciting violence.

I know this is drawing a very long parallel, but what I am trying to say is that sometimes, things that we are allowed to say in a free-speaking democracy should not be allowed.

After the violence in Cronulla last year, we are starting to censor free speech as well - and I support that 100% (at this stage).
__________________

__________________
Otokonoko 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 05:10 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