• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Should European Govts Tighten Speech Restrictions on Wahhabists?

Antiochus

Antiochus

Member
This past week has been an deeply jarring one in both the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S. the issue of free speech has flare up as never before, while in Spain today another wave of terror has yet another innocent nation. Considering that there is now a consensus for American liberals that there should be tighter restrictions on the 1st amendment rights of neo-Nazis and white nationalists, should European governments consider that intellectual argument and apply it to their native Wahhabist/Islamist political activists? For example, just as many major cities in America may no longer tolerate any kind of white nationalist rallies, should major cities such as London or Paris ban any sort of Islamist/Wahhabist oriented political gatherings in the name of public safety?

It is understood this past week has been extremely excruciating for everyone here, but perhaps this topic can be of fruitful exploration.
 
M

Mii

Banned
I didn't know there was a consensus among American liberals on limitations of the 1st Amendment.

I definitely wouldn't agree with limitations. I still believe that it is on the public to shun the ideas, not the government to prevent them.
 
L

low-G

Member
Mii said:
I didn't know there was a consensus among American liberals on limitations of the 1st Amendment.

I definitely wouldn't agree with limitations. I still believe that it is on the public to shun the ideas, not the government to prevent them.
Click to expand...

There are already limitations, even if you don't see them. We are going to have to come to an understanding that encouraging murder of ethnic groups is wrong, and there's no way around it.
 
E

emag

Member
low-G said:
There are already limitations, even if you don't see them. We are going to have to come to an understanding that encouraging murder of ethnic groups is wrong, and there's no way around it.
Click to expand...

Is that what OP is talking about?

It's unclear what is meant by "Islamist/Wahhabist", especially when equating that label with neo-Nazis.
 
Y

yanipheonu

Member
Considering that there is now a consensus for American liberals that there should be tighter restrictions on the 1st amendment rights of neo-Nazis and white nationalists,
Click to expand...

laughing-gifs-jonah-jameson.gif


Oh man thanks I think I need that.

Might want to give this thread a read
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1420732
There isn't exactly concensus regarding restriction of free speech.


Edit:
I mean, if things fall under hate speech or Sedition sure, but a blanket ban seems messy.
 
Antiochus

Antiochus

Member
emag said:
Is that what OP is talking about?
Click to expand...

The recent consensus among many on the American left, if not most members of this forum, now consider hate speech to be no longer protected under any sort of free speech protection. Especially hate speech that is targeted towards vulnerable groups. For example, most American members of this forum will now support legal if not police action against any white nationalist calling for racial secession or neo-Nazis slandering minorities of color, in order to avenge the injustice that happened in Charlottesville. The question naturally arises: many if not most European Islamists/Wahhabists routinely call for the destruction of Jews or slandering of gays. Would perhaps adopting a much more stringent and hard knuckled speech and public activity restriction against them be justified in a moral sense, especially consider what happened today in Barcelona?
 
D

DrDomVonDoom

Member
Isn't Free Speech and I use that term loosely, already rather defined in Europe as opposed to Hate Speech?

Now if you had some people calling for the death of of a person, or persons belonging to a Race, or a Ethnic group, or a Religion or a group of peoples based on said parameters, than I would say thats hate speech.

I don't know why the definition of Hate Speech has no real definition, it seems to be two loose phrases we use, Free and Hate, that have no structure or independence of one another.

Clearly define these phrases, and put restriction in place, at least publically.
I'm not saying we need thought police, but anything you think is for you and for you alone, once you pollute public space with them is when your freedom and my freedom interesect and stop.
 
F

Fulminator

Member
Mii said:
I didn't know there was a consensus among American liberals on limitations of the 1st Amendment.

I definitely wouldn't agree with limitations. I still believe that it is on the public to shun the ideas, not the government to prevent them.
Click to expand...

Honestly I kind of agree with this..

And I am part of one of the groups they (Nazis) want to destroy...
 
N

nynt9

Member
Unfortunately there is no consensus and in this thread you'll get many people who will defend the rights of Nazis over the lives of minorities, with very clever devil's advocate arguments.

As for Wahhabism, I think it would be a consistent stance to want to restrict it as well, but that would be more complicated because muslims are also a disadvantaged minority in Europe so you need to be more careful.
 
X

Xando

Member
Hatespeech laws aren’t limited to Nazis.
Islamists can and have been prosecuted for it.

For example, just as many major cities in America may no longer tolerate any kind of white nationalist rallies, should major cities such as London or Paris ban any sort of Islamist/Wahhabis
Click to expand...
Hatespeech laws have nothing to do with the right to protest
 
E

emag

Member
nynt9 said:
Unfortunately there is no consensus and in this thread you'll get many people who will defend the rights of Nazis over the lives of minorities, with very clever devil's advocate arguments.

As for Wahhabism, I think it would be a consistent stance to want to restrict it as well, but that would be more complicated because muslims are also a disadvantaged minority in Europe so you need to be more careful.
Click to expand...

OP also needs to better define is meant by terms like "Islamist" (any involvement by a Muslim in the political sphere?) and "Wahhabist" (anyone who wants to personally practice religion based on first principles?).
 
K

KillLaCam

Banned
As some one who isn't from the UK I think something should be done. Idk what they could do but something needs to happen to ppl like Abu Haleema Who can just go pretty much anywhere spreading their craziness.

Its a difficult situation though because they might go to far if they try limiting free speech. Like where could they draw the line between just criticism of the UK and something that would be considered
Treachery. (I know these ppl do more than criticize the country though)

Documentaries make it seem like there's alot ppl preaching craziness like Abu Haleema but idk since I'm not there.
 
Antiochus

Antiochus

Member
emag said:
OP also needs to better define is meant by terms like "Islamist" (any involvement by a Muslim in the political sphere?) and "Wahhabist" (anyone who wants to personally practice religion based on first principles?).
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be better to define by the content of the speech. For example, Hizbut el Tahrir in a public square of London calling for a new Islamic revolution that will eventually supplant secular governments. Or perhaps protestors in Paris holding signs denying the Holocaust and praising death to Jews or none-Muslims. Would these be considered hate speech of such extreme caliber, they can be lumped in with that of neo-Nazis and summarily banned and proscribed by legal authorities? Just like many American forum members are saying far right hate speech caused the Charlottesville terror attack, would the above examples of speech be culpable for any future attacks like the one in Barcelona?
 
D

DrDomVonDoom

Member
I am not sure what a consensus with liberals or the left means anything, it means about as much as a consensus on the right, which amounts to squat.

People can agree on whatever they want, I've seen the nature and definitions of many things change over my life time.

Example, Racism used to be defined as the following.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Thats the webster definition of Racism.
Now Racism is defined more along the lines of Prejudice based along lines of power. Or a privileged individual.

People take this definition to heart, because they just said this was the definition. No one was consulted, there was no vote, we didn't go to the Dictionary people, just one day we woke up and a group of unelected, unofficials, just decided this was the new nomenclature.

Now it hasn't changed the definition of racism, but now there is simply this agreement amongst certain circles, this is what this means now.


All that being said.
Nothing can really change until the Government and everyone agrees on what exactly is and isn't Hate Speech, what the consequences are. How its to be enforced, and when and where those lines are drawn.,
 
T

TheUntamedLegend

Member
Antiochus said:
This past week has been an deeply jarring one in both the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S. the issue of free speech has flare up as never before, while in Spain today another wave of terror has yet another innocent nation. Considering that there is now a consensus for American liberals that there should be tighter restrictions on the 1st amendment rights of neo-Nazis and white nationalists, should European governments consider that intellectual argument and apply it to their native Wahhabist/Islamist political activists? For example, just as many major cities in America may no longer tolerate any kind of white nationalist rallies, should major cities such as London or Paris ban any sort of Islamist/Wahhabist oriented political gatherings in the name of public safety?

It is understood this past week has been extremely excruciating for everyone here, but perhaps this topic can be of fruitful exploration.
Click to expand...

No there isn't; no there shouldn't.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
OP can you articulate how you think restrictions on, I guess, public gatherings of Wahhabists, might be connected to preventing terrorist attacks of the type you're referring to. Like, the perp in question might well be a Wahhabist (I don't know, you tell me), but it's not like at Wahhab-fest 2017 he decided "today is my day to martyr myself". It's not even evident he was radicalized by a local mosque versus the more common story of self-radicalizing online. So it's not really clear to me how your proposal is connected to the problem you're trying to solve, or the analogy you're trying to draw to the United States, where the proposal "don't allow nazi rallies"--not a consensus, by the way--seems obviously connected to "there won't be nazi rallies where things escalate out of control". It's not, incidentally, connected to the adjacent problem of individual lone-wolf nazis planning anti-public or anti-government attacks.

It seems in your haste to make this a round-table debate or whatever you didn't really lay out your argument to begin with, which will probably make some people read the thread as insincere or out of left field.

Antiochus said:
For example, Hizbut el Tahrir in a public square of London calling for a new Islamic revolution that will eventually supplant secular governments.
Click to expand...

This seems like an unrelated proposal of whether non-public gatherings ought be allowed to foment anti-government sedition, which is a pretty different question and one probably more closely connected to surveillance powers in terms of enforceability.

Or perhaps protestors in Paris holding signs denying the Holocaust and praising death to Jews or none-Muslims.
Click to expand...

This seems straightforwardly illegal under current French law and not connected to something that needs to be changed.

Just like many American forum members are saying far right hate speech caused the Charlottesville terror attack, would the above examples of speech be culpable for any future attacks like the one in Barcelona?
Click to expand...

I don't think this analogy is helping you at all and it's really unclear you why you're insisting on continuing to draw it rather than clearly articulating the actual thing you want to talk about. Analogies are devices used to ease understanding of the case of interest by drawing parallels to a case that's already well understood. It's very clear that here you aren't helping people understand the problem you're talking about, you're confusing them because of the tenuous strength of the analogy and the fact that it is being analogized to a case that is currently subject to active debate, not at all something people have a clear answer for that they can port to your context.

Some people might think you actually aren't trying to discuss your case, but instead trying to use the analogy as a cudgel to browbeat people you disagree with into believing their own position on an unrelated issue mandates they make a concession on the issue you're talking about.
 
M

Mass_Pincup

Banned
You should do some research before posting a thread like that.

Hate speech already exist in Europe and many Wahhabist have been prosecuted already.
 
E

Earthbound64

Banned
Worth noting, OP's locked topic from 5 days ago.

Antiochus said:
It seems the majority of Neo-Gaf have decided civil secession of Blue States is a none starter after the what happened at Charlottesville. However, it seems many if not most have expressed sentiments that current 1st Amendments interpretations in the United States are fatally flawed in confronting the rise of Neo-Nazism in the nation. Perhaps then a debate on that topic will be more fruitful in deciding what can be done to contain if not eliminate Neo-Nazism in America.

Should the 1st Amendment be completely abolished, and be replaced with one that stresses social cohesion and peace above all else?

Should it be revised to include exceptions for hate speech? Especially those against ethnic or religious minorities?

Or should it be revised so that state governments in the United States can have carte blanche to interpret in what ever ways they like? For example, the found of "Unite the Right" rally claimed Virginia police violated their 1st amendment by dispersing their rally. With states getting complete rights to re-interpret the 1st amendment however they like, Virginia police can then say they had the absolute right to do so.

What other actions can be done to the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...

And again talking about "the majority of 'Neo-Gaf' have decided..." and "it seems many if not most have expressed sentiments that..."
 
E

emag

Member
Antiochus said:
Perhaps it would be better to define by the content of the speech. For example, Hizbut el Tahrir in a public square of London calling for a new Islamic revolution that will eventually supplant secular governments. Or perhaps protestors in Paris holding signs denying the Holocaust and praising death to Jews or none-Muslims. Would these be considered hate speech of such extreme caliber, they can be lumped in with that of neo-Nazis and summarily banned and proscribed by legal authorities? Just like many American forum members are saying far right hate speech caused the Charlottesville terror attack, would the above examples of speech be culpable for any future attacks like the one in Barcelona?
Click to expand...

The former does not seem categorically different from what we routinely see in the US, with numerous people, including presidential candidates, publicly calling for Christian principles to drive government policy, often in the form of a "revolution". Heck, even in "secular" Europe, prominent Christian parties are in power across multiple nations. And Macron ran on a campaign of "revolution" in France as well. EDIT: If you're referring to plotting/promoting armed rebellion against the government, that's different and would reasonably be prohibited.

The later seems a more clearcut case of hate speech. If we were to ban Nazi rhetoric, then it would be fitting to ban this hate speech as well.

That said, I think you mischaracterize what American forum members are saying, in general. There's no consensus on criminalizing denigrating/hate speech or holding those who utter it legally culpable for terror attacks as in Charlottesville; at most, it's a fringe opinion.
 
Z

ZackieChan

Member
I've seen a number of posts mentioning sedition as something that is illegal in the US - where is that coming from? Afaik, there is no such law (Sedition Act was repealed a century ago) and unless you're advocating imminent threats (Brandenburg v Ohio) that speech is protected.
 
K

kiguel182

Member
Hate speech is already not protected in most EU countries if not all.

If someone decided to throw a parade screaming "death to [insert group] here" it would not be allowed. We follow the paradox of tolerance pretty much.

Altought far right parties obviously still exist. But they aren't waving Nazi flags. They probably wish they could.
 
S

SecretMoblin

Member
ZackieChan said:
I've seen a number of posts mentioning sedition as something that is illegal in the US - where is that coming from? Afaik, there is no such law (Sedition Act was repealed a century ago) and unless you're advocating imminent threats (Brandenburg v Ohio) that speech is protected.
Click to expand...

Sedition in the typical sense - "Let's bring down the U.S. government, by force if we have to" - is now considered protected speech. But the U.S. has a "seditious conspiracy" law dating back to the 40s that has had varying degrees of effectiveness:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Click to expand...

It requires a concrete plan to be in place (an actual conspiracy), and it doesn't cover general political antigovernment rhetoric. It's been used sparingly to try and kneecap left-wing and neo-nazi/militia types.
 
Antiochus

Antiochus

Member
Stumpokapow said:
OP can you articulate how you think restrictions on, I guess, public gatherings of Wahhabists, might be connected to preventing terrorist attacks of the type you're referring to. Like, the perp in question might well be a Wahhabist (I don't know, you tell me), but it's not like at Wahhab-fest 2017 he decided "today is my day to martyr myself". It's not even evident he was radicalized by a local mosque versus the more common story of self-radicalizing online. So it's not really clear to me how your proposal is connected to the problem you're trying to solve, or the analogy you're trying to draw to the United States, where the proposal "don't allow nazi rallies"--not a consensus, by the way--seems obviously connected to "there won't be nazi rallies where things escalate out of control". It's not, incidentally, connected to the adjacent problem of individual lone-wolf nazis planning anti-public or anti-government attacks.

It seems in your haste to make this a round-table debate or whatever you didn't really lay out your argument to begin with, which will probably make some people read the thread as insincere or out of left field.



This seems like an unrelated proposal of whether non-public gatherings ought be allowed to foment anti-government sedition, which is a pretty different question and one probably more closely connected to surveillance powers in terms of enforceability.



This seems straightforwardly illegal under current French law and not connected to something that needs to be changed.



I don't think this analogy is helping you at all and it's really unclear you why you're insisting on continuing to draw it rather than clearly articulating the actual thing you want to talk about. Analogies are devices used to ease understanding of the case of interest by drawing parallels to a case that's already well understood. It's very clear that here you aren't helping people understand the problem you're talking about, you're confusing them because of the tenuous strength of the analogy and the fact that it is being analogized to a case that is currently subject to active debate, not at all something people have a clear answer for that they can port to your context.

Some people might think you actually aren't trying to discuss your case, but instead trying to use the analogy as a cudgel to browbeat people you disagree with into believing their own position on an unrelated issue mandates they make a concession on the issue you're talking about.
Click to expand...

If there is any confusion, this topic was started from a European context trying to make sense of two recent, brutal events across the Atlantic
 
Antiochus

Antiochus

Member
Earthbound64 said:
Worth noting, OP's locked topic from 5 days ago.



And again talking about "the majority of 'Neo-Gaf' have decided..." and "it seems many if not most have expressed sentiments that..."
Click to expand...

It is not easy as an European to judge the sentiments of American forum members here, but emotions were running very high last weekend after Charlottesville, so it is reasonable to construe that impression, especially it was so such a highly active debate going across many threads.
 
J

jdstorm

Banned
No. Anything that limits freedom of speech is bad.

In saying that there should be laws that guard against inaccurate reporting or "fake news", there should be restrictions on large groups carrying deadly weapons such as guns into the street and i would personally hope many councils use loopholes to supress these hate filled gatherings
 
Antiochus

Antiochus

Member
Stumpokapow said:
OP can you articulate how you think restrictions on, I guess, public gatherings of Wahhabists, might be connected to preventing terrorist attacks of the type you're referring to. Like, the perp in question might well be a Wahhabist (I don't know, you tell me), but it's not like at Wahhab-fest 2017 he decided "today is my day to martyr myself". It's not even evident he was radicalized by a local mosque versus the more common story of self-radicalizing online. So it's not really clear to me how your proposal is connected to the problem you're trying to solve, or the analogy you're trying to draw to the United States, where the proposal "don't allow nazi rallies"--not a consensus, by the way--seems obviously connected to "there won't be nazi rallies where things escalate out of control". It's not, incidentally, connected to the adjacent problem of individual lone-wolf nazis planning anti-public or anti-government attacks.
.
Click to expand...

This topic is inspired in large part by recent arguments that public hate speech, especially those that are unopposed and allowed to air, can serve as potentially dangerous dog whistles that will empower certain crazed elements to actual disorder and violence. Many will agree that logic certainly applies to neo-Nazis and white nationalists in America, and most definitely to those types in Europe as well. But considering what happened in Barcelona, and of course the past 2 years in other European capitals, can potentially that logic fit with the process of Islamist radicalization as well?
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Antiochus said:
This topic is inspired in large part by recent arguments that public hate speech, especially those that are unopposed and allowed to air, can serve as potentially dangerous dog whistles that will empower certain crazed elements to actual disorder and violence. Many will agree that logic certainly applies to neo-Nazis and white nationalists in America, and most definitely to those types in Europe as well. But considering what happened in Barcelona, and of course the past 2 years in other European capitals, can potentially that logic fit with the process of Islamist radicalization as well?
Click to expand...

I find it really hard to believe that you read my post, absorbed it, and thought that this reply addressed the concerns and questions of the post.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
The dignity of the individual should be rated higher than freedom of speech.

This is sure only a topic in the USA with the misunderstood definition of the nebelous definition of freedom.
 
W

Wrestlemania

Banned
Man erects liberal hivemind strawman in which he thinks he’s found a very clever double standard, creates threads to expose this and shows his ass.
 
P

Palette Swap

Member
They're already banned from public discourse in the sense that they can be prosecuted. Nevermind that authorities have been closing radical underground mosques left and right.

Honestly, it feels like a really dumb gotcha that was way smarter in your head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
7K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
China further tightens restrictions on violence, sexuality, and choice in gaming
13
2K
McCheese replied
Interview with Shuji Utsumi (SEGA Co-COO) by Japanese media outlet Seizo-Trend
Business Game Dev
1
1K
Unknown? replied
TSMC halts new Huawei orders after US tightens restrictions
7
674
Pagusas replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
FF XVI IGN Interview Triggers ResetERA Into MADNESS (Diversity/Representation)
Opinion Drama Cringe 2 3
130
9K
TheInfamousKira replied
Top Bottom