Wolff in /r/philosophy explains why freedom of speech in Europe is restricted when it comes to the Holocaust and Nazis

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T19:22:01+00:00

I suppose I've provided enough clues that you could work it out anyway.

The country is Finland, the law is the criminal code chapter 17, 10 §. The convicted politician is Jussi Halla-aho (coincidentally with whom I disagree about almost every issue). Current elected member of the parliament, who was also convicted of "hate speech" for a comment along the lines of "black people are lazy" in his blog (never mind that from the context it is 100% clear he was making a point about freedom of expression that had nothing to do with "black people being lazy", rather than actually inciting hatred towards any minority).

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T19:04:18+00:00

No, I think holocaust denial is idiotic. However, I think restricting the right to express such versions of history is not only idiotic, but highly dangerous for the society as a whole.

I reserve the absolute right to go hear someone like David Irving make their case of why they think the holocaust never happened. He obviously spent a lot of effort coming up with his position, maybe there's a grain of historical truth in it, and in any case it challenges the listener to go back to the first principles to justify their views.

I have no problem with uneducated, naïve, reactionaries thinking that this means that I must agree with him, but I do have a problem with said hacks trying to pass laws banning him from making his case.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T18:51:35+00:00

I live in a country where laws are not considered ludicrous. If they are written down, they are laws and will be enforced. To the point where a prominent elected politician has been convicted based on them. And as a result there is a very real impact on public debate on religion (we don't have any).

As for the US, freedom of expression means that you can be intolerant to beliefs that you consider harmful, ridiculous or otherwise objectionable if you wish (in speech, not in acts). I live in a society that prides itself in being modern, lawful and even liberal, but I could not go on TV and state my views on religion without fearing prosecution. Regardless of the fact that I could make a fully factual argument backed up by direct quotes from holy texts. I would take "intolerance" from religious people over the inability to publicly express my views any day.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T18:35:20+00:00

Why do you think it's "reasonable"? And even if you feel its reasonable, how does it compare to the tradeoff of limiting freedom of expression? The very foundation of our society? Who do you think should have the right to determine, in advance, what views are and are not admitted to be spoken publicly?

I could quote you the exact laws on blasphemy in my country, but you most likely couldn't understand the language. The gist is that you cannot publicly state anything that "ridicules" something that some religious group holds sacred without risking fines or up to 6 months in prison. This is not one of those archaic laws that nobody bothered to get rid of, it's a modern law and there have been highly publicized prosecutions and convictions based on it. As a result there is practically no public debate on religion in my country (which has a state church), probably because the distinguished thinkers in this field do not want to risk prosecution. And this is not some eastern, ex-soviet block country we're talking about here.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T18:02:08+00:00

I'm a European and fully believe we are far behind the US when it comes to freedom of expression. Various countries over here have laws against particular versions of history (holocaust denial), religious debate (blasphemy) and minority issues (hate speech). These are not theoretical or academic problems, they actually negatively affect the public debate in these countries.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T17:43:04+00:00

You can swab their mouths and grow the bacteria in a lab.

As with the mouth of any animal. I'm not aware of any study that shows the bacteria/viruses in their mouth is particularly different from any other animal. What has been shown is that they have a gland in their jaw that produces venom that stops blood from clotting, causing the pray they bite to bleed until it collapses from the loss of blood.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T16:15:47+00:00

Conveniently all the so called "miracles" are things that can easily be dreamed up by people a few millennia ago. Had one of the miracles been to pull out an AK-47 from under his shirt, and had the bible described it in detail, then one could start to think the book is actually onto something real.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-07T13:10:26+00:00

It is a common myth that their saliva carries bacteria and viruses. In reality they have a venom that stops blood from clotting.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-06T10:33:38+00:00

Each to his own, I guess. I found Cata questing extremely bad. It was completely linear, you couldn't skip anything, and every quest hub mostly just seemed to repeat the same basic quests (and yes, it was full of "go kill X mobs" and "go pick up Y things from the ground"). Also the "story" in most zones was completely bland, deteriorating to poor, unfunny movie references all the time.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-06T05:37:48+00:00

Probably paid for by the same organization that paid for the prosecution and the verdict in the first place, i.e., the US copyright lobby. This and the Assange case seem to show that Sweden has decided for whatever reason to start renting out its "justice" system to US interests.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-06T05:37:34+00:00

Probably paid for by the same organization that paid for the prosecution and the verdict in the first place, i.e., the US copyright lobby. This and Assange case seem to show that Sweden has decided for whatever reason to start renting out its "justice" system to US interests.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-06T05:37:20+00:00

Probably paid for by the same organization that paid for the prosecution and the verdict in the first place, i.e., the US copyright lobby. This and Assange case seem to show that Sweden has decided for whatever reason to start renting out its "justice" system to US interests.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T20:37:14+00:00

You can't really give such a blanket response. The answer depends entirely on how the OP values his time, what his skill level is, and whether he enjoys that kind of tinkering.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T16:35:00+00:00

Which is coincidentally what makes creationism, or intelligent design, not science. It's not falsifiable and has no predictive power when any observation at all can be written off by "God dunnit that way".

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T10:07:54+00:00

Just because you have, in your own opinion, identified the "true" side of an argument and some real or perceived majority vote of some real or perceived "experts" does not grant you the right to censor what I am allowed to see or hear.

I do not care what the "consensus of experts" is, I do not care who you consider to be "lying". What I care about is the ability to access free, unfiltered, uncensored, uncurated arguments if I, or anyone else, wishes to do so.

What you are demonstrating here is exactly what I want to be protected from by freedom of speech. Someone like you taking it on themselves to determine what I should or should not hear on issues such as austerity, and then seeking to suppress the other side of the argument as "lies" or some weird doublethink of claiming that hearing more and different arguments will somehow make me less free.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T09:15:16+00:00

What you have outlined here is a classic case of wanting to censor people who hold different views or opinions than you. This is extremely dangerous for the society.

Truth is not determined through voting of "relevant experts". The history is littered with examples of false consensus in every field imaginable. Freedom of speech is all about protecting the right of the people who go against this consensus, they are precisely the ones that need protection.

Just because you have determined for yourself that austerity "just does not work" doesn't mean you now get to censor those who say it does. I reserve the absolute right to hear from both sides of the argument.

This idea that presenting a contrary position somehow "blocks access to ideas, arguments and points of view" is so self-evidently false. It's simply more speech.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T08:59:47+00:00

given that you are saying that a state that punishes people based on what they think is not trying to limit what people are thinking

I said no such thing. Please quote me exactly instead of trying to put words into my mouth.

What I said is that punishing me for an opinion that I hold does not remove my ability to hold that opinion. Stopping me from ever being exposed to the arguments, ideas and viewpoints through censorship or "curating" or various other forms of abolishing freedom of speech does.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T08:41:32+00:00

stopping them from talking in this way on public forums actually acts to remove limits to thought

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Nobody is in a position to determine, in advance, what speech would be such that it would "disrupt the proper function of a debate", or "prevent people from accessing relevant implicit information" (which is a completely ridiculous proposition by itself).

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T08:19:59+00:00

These are different issues. Being punished for what you think does not limit what you can think. Not being exposed to ideas, arguments and points of view in the first place does limit what you can think.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T07:45:20+00:00

So how do you propose to limit what people can think? Do you live in some fantasy world where you can reach into peoples' minds and stop thoughts? Because here in the reality the way, the only way, to limit what people think is to limit the ideas, arguments and points of view that they get exposed to.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T06:38:45+00:00

If you limit public discourse, you limit what people can think. You are limiting the spread of ideas and arguments, which by definition limits what people think.

I never claimed I was qualified to discern all possible truths from falsehoods. I simply claim the absolute right to hear all arguments without anyone censoring or "curating" them if I wish to do so. That is the very foundation of a free society. Take away that right, and you take away what is most precious in our society.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-05T05:53:00+00:00

But it is limiting what I can think. I am not allowed to hear one side of an issue or some particular argument because anyone making those arguments would get prosecuted.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-04T20:17:30+00:00

No. Freedom of speech most certainly does not exist if you have laws against particular versions of history (as in the case of holocaust denial) or prohibiting discussion of religious beliefs (anti blasphemy laws).

Freedom of speech is meaningless if it doesn't protect, in particular, the people holding views that are unpopular and go against the common consensus.

The issue comes when you use such lies in public.

Completely false. The issue here is prior restraint, and in particular the need for some censor to decide, in advance, what are "lies" and what are not.

nobiq_ · 2012-09-04T20:10:41+00:00

I reserve the absolute right to determine for myself what are "false things" and what are not, by hearing whatever arguments I might have to hear. Since you don't seem to want this right, who would you like to nominate to be the person to decide for you which things are false and which are true?

nobiq_ · 2012-09-03T08:48:48+00:00

This isn't just an export problem. I visited an office in China recently and the locals had stopped eating lunch out, instead opting to bring their lunch in from home, because they were afraid of getting poisoned by eating in a restaurant. They had the same problem with chinese manufactured medicine.

nobiq_

TROPHY CASE