Support NeoGAF

[East Lake]

It doesn't eliminate antisemitism. But it does help ensure that the historical consequences of antisemitism are preserved and taught.

Imagine if antisemitists could openly say that the holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy? It just plays into the image of the Jews as a NWO that controls everything.

That happens in the US and nobody cares, you could argue that it would be more powerful in europe but I don't know if that's comforting since it might mean the europeans would be more accepting of anti-semitism.

Of course the laws work. It's not legal for you to run blatantly racist rally's How often do of such rallies occuring in Europe, and of course when they do happen they generally get broken up by the police because that's their purpose.

Compare that to a presidential canitate who is inciting racial violence and routinely has such violence occurring at his rallies.

This is quite litterally the worst time to make such arguements when America litterally has president candiate that has run his campaign based on hate speech and it's visible to see all the problems that entails.

Hate speech has been clearly visible well before Trump and will be after. These laws I think in theory might work only when the society generally frowns upon whatever the specific "hate speech" is already. That's why arguing for laws banning Trump or his speech are silly. Would Marco Rubio's justice department enforce those laws? Maybe he could get away with banning the KKK, but you can't ban the Tea Party and the Tea Party can function quite well without being explicitly racist, much like any european party could. The argument generally seems to be that well, countries with these laws decided a long time ago at a point in time when very few people were prejudiced that these laws were a good idea, and the people with the right morals will have control forever.

 

[poppabk]

Correct. It's the public's job to argue back publicly against this sort of thing. True debate and public shame is the only punishment freedom of speech levies.

France is a democracy, so they're fine to vote for these laws. They decide what counts as a right and what doesn't. But you can't eat your cake and have it too. France doesn't have free speech. As a democracy, they chose that, and that's fine. But call a spade a spade here.

But then no country has free speech.

 

[Hermii]

Now that I been thinking about it, I am more in the free speech camp than the fine hate speech camp. Its better to have these things in the open so everyone can see it, rather than banning it at let it continue more hidden. Taking action might mean giving the statements more power than they would have had if they were left alone.

Also about the "relatively humane" statement, everything is relative. Sure it wasn't as brutal as the Japanese occupations or the Nazi invasion of Russia, but just because something else was worse doesn't mean it wasn't bad. I dont know what context that was said in, but either way I dont think he should be fined for it.

Also I disagree about making this an America vs Europe thing. We are all messed up in our own ways.

 

[UrbanRats]

Defending a comically hateful politician's right to say hateful shit isn't exactly far from defending a comically hateful politician, especially when some of the above-mentionned hateful shit is against the law...

Actually, it is.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Americans don't understand this for the same reason they don't believe in the government: they believe the only greater powers fit to decide for the greater good of the populace are god and money, but apparently the collectivity of the population deciding rights limitations is fascism.

You do realize that a lot of American liberals who otherwise believe in government intervention also believe in a robust freedom of speech, don't you?

 

[Bazza]

One is actively threatening violence against an individual.

The other is an opinion.

Both the same thing in my opinion, just one is more subtle than the other.

 

[twobear]

Again, you have to understand the historical issues in order to understand why Europe has free speech curtailments related to the Holocaust. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust are not distant history, they are still living memory. And they were not events that happened in some developing backwater with an already fascist government--they happened in one of the most industrially developed countries in the world right in the heart of the West.

Perhaps the law is heavy handed and not the best way to achieve its goal, that is, to ensure that it never happens again. There's a lot of valid debate there. But it's not difficult to see why they exist and why Europe has this relationship with the Holocaust.

 

[Riposte]

Legal repercussions? Then that's not free speech.

You are also free to yell "fire" at a theater, but that's not protected under free speech and you will face legal repercussions.

This is a tired meme at this point. Here is a good deconstruction of it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm

Here is a more up to date one I've only skimmed:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Legally irrelevant. Let the meme die.

 

[TAJ]

Some people consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitism. Has anyone been prosecuted in Europe for it?

 

[Henkka]

There it is.

Dude, are you serious? The government stepping in and fining him is the exact opposite of "free to say what he wants". Right or wrong, that is fact. It baffles me that anyone would think this.

If this was like a guy who got fired from his job after denying the holocaust, that's the correct time to bring up not being free from repercussions.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Dude, are you serious? The government stepping in and fining him is the exact opposite of "free to say what he wants". Right or wrong, that is fact. It baffles me that anyone would think this.

If this was like a guy who got fired from his job after denying the holocaust, that's the correct time to bring up not being free from repercussions.

The government didn't step in, the justice did. That's two separate things.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Um. Yes?

Saying all of those things would be ridiculous and dumb. But why would I want to take away someone's rights to act like an idiot in public?

Then why do you / we have indecent exposure laws?
If someone wants to ridicule himself by running around naked, it should be his right, right?

Correct. It's the public's job to argue back publicly against this sort of thing. True debate and public shame is the only punishment freedom of speech levies.

France is a democracy, so they're fine to vote for these laws. They decide what counts as a right and what doesn't. But you can't eat your cake and have it too. France doesn't have free speech. As a democracy, they chose that, and that's fine. But call a spade a spade here.

I'll just note that under this very strict definition of free speech, absolutely no country has free speech.

Act on it? Like suddenly decide to go out and enslave someone if person A claims slavery never happened, that it was voluntary...

So then arrest that person who a actually commits the crime. Idiot A can't be responsible for crazy person B just because they spouted dumb rhetoric. That's literally insane talk

Then why are fighting words and violence inciting speeches forbidden in the US?

Dude, are you serious? The government stepping in and fining him is the exact opposite of "free to say what he wants". Right or wrong, that is fact. It baffles me that anyone would think this.

If this was like a guy who got fired from his job after denying the holocaust, that's the correct time to bring up not being free from repercussions.

As others have noted, (most of ?) the EU isn't build on the notion "you are totally free", but "you are totally free as long as it doesn't harm others" (or more elegantly framed "one's freedom ends where that of another begins")
So the interpretation of free speech in this case is "you are free to say whatever you want, as long as it isn't factually wrong and supports a dangerous ideology. Especially if you're a public figure".

And toadd to a previous debate a few page back: holocaust denial isn't an opinion. It is factually a wrong believe.

 

[Mael]

The government didn't step in, the justice did. That's two separate things.

Holy crap it's like someone skipped history or something about the separation of powers or something.

 

[bomma_man]

Why are hate speech laws the precipice of a fascist slippery slope while restrictions on imminent danger all fine and dandy? I don't see how the distinction between them is anything but arbitrary.

 

[Valhelm]

As deplorable and disgusting his and other deniers comments are, facing fines and jail is ridiculous.

People should have the right to say and think whatever they feel like regarding history.

Agreed. Banning Holocaust denial mostly inflames conspiratorial thinking.

 

[twobear]

Agreed. Banning Holocaust denial mostly inflames conspiratorial thinking.

Is there any hard and fast evidence for this claim, though?

As I understand it, the banning of Holocaust denial is a vestigial part of the denazification process that occurred in Germany after WW2.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Then why do you / we have indecent exposure laws?
If someone wants to ridicule himself by running around naked, it should be his right, right?

Unless your intention is to offend (in which case it may be sexual harassment) then you do have that right. (Sweden)

 

[F1Fan]

I am not a fan of limiting freedom of speech, but at some point there has to be a line.

Hate speeches do nothing but promote disgust & violence against another group of society. How is this acceptable? Long term hate speech can and most likely will endanger people's lifes.

Germany after the WW1, weren't Nazi's. Certain individuals quite simply changed the perception of people by using hate speeches along with discontent over a period of 10+ years, until hating a certain group of people become acceptable and normal in a society.

Trump is now the latest example, it has almost become acceptable certain thing's he says. His supporters are growing steadily, the more crazy shit he says the more popular he is. During a trump rally, people are not even allowed to quietly protests anymore. Yet none is doing anything about it, has almost become acceptable to be punched and kicked out.

I wonder what good Trump's freedom of speech will lead, if he is the president for the next 8 years. Society as a whole will be a lot worse off. America as a whole will be a lot more divided, with a lot more hate crimes occurring.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Is there any hard and fast evidence for this claim, though?

As I understand it, the banning of Holocaust denial is a vestigial part of the denazification process that occurred in Germany after WW2.

A German exchange student actually apologized to me in high school when she found out I was Jewish. For the most part, the German people are vdry guilty over that aspect of their nation's history. Meanwhile here in America, people celebrate the confederacy and we have a presidential candidate practically running on white supremacism.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Do we know who will replace him?

 

[Jenenser]

i will hold it short. reading this thread was tiring...

Is it a Limit on free speach?

yes

am i ok with fining someone who spreads missinformation and hate on that level?

yes

should this thread be a dickcontest between america and europe?

probably not, but hey if you guys feel better doing it, its your world, i just live in it.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

I love the idea that hate speech will always be shouted down. I love the idea that education will stamp it out. I just don't think that reflects reality.

I might be a part of AmeriGaf but I agree strongly with EuroGaf on this subject. I think the huge division in opinion comes from the different relationships we have with our respective governments. Americans fear their government I assume because as a whole they aren't really active in the political process. I could be wrong but it seems to be the opposite in Europe. They see the government as an extension of their will because they are so involved in the process.

 

[timetokill]

The question is whether you think a government can be trusted to accurately and without ulterior motive determine what is actually "hate" speech.

As an American the idea of allowing the government to decide that what I say is hate speech and criminalize me for it is abhorrent and absurd. Giving that kind of power to the government can only lead to injustice.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The question is whether you think a government can be trusted to accurately and without ulterior motive determine what is actually "hate" speech.

As an American the idea of allowing the government to decide that what I say is hate speech and criminalize me for it is abhorrent and absurd. Giving that kind of power to the government can only lead to injustice.

We already give them that power. You can't threaten someone, even if you have no intent on acting on that threat. But you can generally advocate for violent acts.

"Kill timetokill" would be illegal for me to say.

"All users whose names start with 't' should die" is legal to say.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Some people consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitism. Has anyone been prosecuted in Europe for it?

European countries have laws against holocaust denial, hate speech, insulting specific people and inciting violence.
Unless the criticism falls under any of these categories its safe.

 

[timetokill]

We already give them that power. You can't threaten someone, even if you have no intent on acting on that threat. But you can generally advocate for violent acts.

Er, okay?
Threatening someone is far different from "hate speech," which is what I was specifically talking about in my post.

Imagine saying, "our government is fucked up, we should get rid of the monarchy and have a republic." And the government says, "that's a crime!" (pretty sure this is actually the case in the UK for example)

Or, "police these days are essentially thugs in a violent gang," and it's labeled "hate speech!" against police.

 

[Livingskeletons]

I still can't believe Charles Manson is still alive.

If you told someone back in the 60s that Manson would still be alive in 2016 they'd probably laugh.

 

[Rest]

Ah Europe

Freedom of speech isn't much of a thing there apparently

That's why America threw off the yoke.

 

[OverturePT]

And rightly so.

 

[BigDes]

Er, okay?
Threatening someone is far different from "hate speech," which is what I was specifically talking about in my post.

Imagine saying, "our government is fucked up, we should get rid of the monarchy and have a republic." And the government says, "that's a crime!" (pretty sure this is actually the case in the UK for example)

Or, "police these days are essentially thugs in a violent gang," and it's labeled "hate speech!" against police.

It isnt a crime to advocate the dissolution of the monarchy in the UK.

 

[Bossun]

Well, in America this might seem outrageous but different values for different people. We value life, or possibility of harm more than the right of someone to propagate hatred or violence.

Also, unlike american we do not fear our government and every time we feel the line is crossed, and we feel our freedom is attacked, it is rapidly pointed out and taken care of.

However when I see Trump I think our ways are a good middle ground. It's not like he is in jail and not like we had banned him from the elections. Everybody knows what he truly think and yet he still had the right to be a candidate. He just has to not say anything hateful in public.

 

[timetokill]

It isnt a crime to advocate the dissolution of the monarchy in the UK.

Okay, I got bad info somewhere then. Glad to hear it.

Well, in America this might seem outrageous but different values for different people. We value life, or possibility of harm more than the right of someone to propagate hatred or violence.

Also, unlike american we do not fear our government and every time we feel the line is crossed, and we feel our freedom is attacked, it is rapidly pointed out and taken care of..

Considering Europe's past it is pretty astonishing that you do not fear your governments and their capacity for ill.

 

[King_Moc]

It isnt a crime to advocate the dissolution of the monarchy in the UK.

I think it technically still is: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...bolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry

I think it's also illegal to even imagine the dissolution of it, yet alone call for it.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Americans don't understand this for the same reason they don't believe in the government: they believe the only greater powers fit to decide for the greater good of the populace are god and money, but apparently the collectivity of the population deciding rights limitations is fascism.

This kind of ridiculous, dismissive arrogance is why Americans look at Europeans as snobs.

I'm an atheist, agnostic liberal. I think hate speech is horrible. I also believe, philosophically, that good is not truly good if it is not a product of choice, and that, philosophically, banning speech that does not advocate violence nor directly imply threat to someone's person is not something that should ever be in the purview of the government. It's for the same reason that I do not believe in hate crime legislation, because I do not think the government should be in the business of punishing intent, nor that crimes are worsened by having one kind of motivation over another. The inner life is the purview of the individual, and while the state has every right to try and guide it via education, public policy proposals, etc., it does, in the end, fall on the individual to craft and regulate it. Belief that freedom from as much state-mandated conformity as possible is the optimal condition for a society to be in is a pretty deep part of my being, something I could spend many words on, and to dismiss that as mere American stupidity clinging to God and capitalism is downright insulting.

 

[Valhelm]

A German exchange student actually apologized to me in high school when she found out I was Jewish. For the most part, the German people are vdry guilty over that aspect of their nation's history. Meanwhile here in America, people celebrate the confederacy and we have a presidential candidate practically running on white supremacism.

Do you think racism would be any less severe if it was illegal to own a confederate flag? I feel like a law like that hides bigotry with addressing the root causes.

 

[Tar-Miriel]

i like how the op just dropped this here and left everyone to duke it out XD

 

[Ether_Snake]

In the US you don't need those laws to make such talks pretty much irrelevant. I think laws like this are just another European way to hide a problem, like so many others, and eventually they surface, often together at the worst of times.

Well, in America this might seem outrageous but different values for different people. We value life, or possibility of harm more than the right of someone to propagate hatred or violence.

Also, unlike american we do not fear our government and every time we feel the line is crossed, and we feel our freedom is attacked, it is rapidly pointed out and taken care of.

However when I see Trump I think our ways are a good middle ground. It's not like he is in jail and not like we had banned him from the elections. Everybody knows what he truly think and yet he still had the right to be a candidate. He just has to not say anything hateful in public.

Yeah right, Breivik loved his government, the Brussell bombers loved their governments, and so on, right? In Europe people don't fear their governments? You're right, people attack their own governments directly instead.

There's been FAR MORE instability and attacks against governments in Europe than in the US, and it continues to be a real problem in Europe, not the US.

These measures are not because Europe is doing so well, be because it's a boiling pot of discontent and these measures are quick solutions to attempt to keep the lid on. It's in the Europe that extremist parties and the likes are on the significant rise, not the US.

 

[TAJ]

European countries have laws against holocaust denial, hate speech, insulting specific people and inciting violence.
Unless the criticism falls under any of these categories its safe.

That's the thing... Many people would consider it hate speech. The funny thing is that a lot of the arguments I've heard in favor of Israel were hate speech.

 

[JABEE]

And incredibly, the European political leader got punished, like he should. Stupidity and evil rise everywhere, and that's exactly why you need to have checks in place. Relying on things like 'the market will punish racists' has no basis on reality.

We need to let the government directly punish political speech like the monarchs and clergy of old.

Free speech is a right in the United States. One of the best things about this country. People should always defend their right to be politically active and talk about issues.

The USA political system is broken, but we have done well with our free speech thing. No Hitlers, Mussolinis or Kings on this side of the Atlantic.

 

[Raist]

Free speech in America is going too far.

Source

Spoiler

Can't stop laughing.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

These measures are not because Europe is doing so well, be because it's a boiling pot of discontent and these measures are quick solutions to attempt to keep the lid on. It's in the Europe that extremist parties and the likes are on the significant rise, not the US.

I'm not going to suggest Europe doesn't have those groups I'm sure they do. To claim that America doesn't is simply lying. Unless your idea of extremists follow the family guy formula.

 

[JABEE]

Again, you have to understand the historical issues in order to understand why Europe has free speech curtailments related to the Holocaust. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust are not distant history, they are still living memory. And they were not events that happened in some developing backwater with an already fascist government--they happened in one of the most industrially developed countries in the world right in the heart of the West.

Perhaps the law is heavy handed and not the best way to achieve its goal, that is, to ensure that it never happens again. There's a lot of valid debate there. But it's not difficult to see why they exist and why Europe has this relationship with the Holocaust.

The weird thing is that Europe needs these laws to prevent people from looking back on those wicked times with nostalgia and pride. Europe is shaped by Nazism and the fall of monarchies in the same way that the United States is shaped by its distrust of government foreign and abroad.

People in the US are taught the importance of free speech, because it is a powerful tool to impact change. It can be very easily squashed or mitigated by regime changes, and that's why the Bill of Rights and constitution are so important.

People look back on the Red Scare and Communist Hunts of the early part of the 20th century as a reminder of what can happen when political speech is limited in the name of public safety and fear.

 

[finowns]

Maybe because I'm from Canada, a country in which you can get in trouble for saying hateful shit, but I don't see in inherent value in protecting all forms of speech. Some of you make it sound like you can't have a functioning society without it or are literally a step away from being some dictatorship.

I don't know, we seem to be doing fine here.

From an American perspective it's just an odd tool to give the government. Deciding what speech is considered 'right' shouldn't be a function of the government.

 

[poppabk]

The question is whether you think a government can be trusted to accurately and without ulterior motive determine what is actually "hate" speech.

As an American the idea of allowing the government to decide that what I say is hate speech and criminalize me for it is abhorrent and absurd. Giving that kind of power to the government can only lead to injustice.

Who do you think decides what speech is likely to incite imminent violence? Besides the government has much more powerful means of silencing dissenters than fining them.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

From an American perspective it's just an odd tool to give the government. Deciding what speech is considered 'right' shouldn't be a function of the government.

Again, the government and the justice are 2 separate things. No one in the government has any say on who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. Our former president is getting prosecuted because he asked for secret information on a ongoing case.

 

[Joni]

In the US you don't need those laws to make such talks pretty much irrelevant. I think laws like this are just another European way to hide a problem, like so many others, and eventually they surface, often together at the worst of times.

Yeah right, Breivik loved his government, the Brussell bombers loved their governments, and so on, right? In Europe people don't fear their governments? You're right, people attack their own governments directly instead.

There's been FAR MORE instability and attacks against governments in Europe than in the US, and it continues to be a real problem in Europe, not the US.

These measures are not because Europe is doing so well, be because it's a boiling pot of discontent and these measures are quick solutions to attempt to keep the lid on. It's in the Europe that extremist parties and the likes are on the significant rise, not the US.

This post is so wrong and ridiculous it is fantastic. Let's see:
- Holocaust Denial is quite irrelevant in the United States, despite an American laying the groundwork for it. Major books have been written on the subject, mostly by Americans. The Institute for Historical Review also still exists. Even Eisenhower knew Americans wouldn't believe it. Which is common, slavery was apparantly only migrant workers, evolution is only one discredited theory and vaccinations cause autism. All fun in the American school systems. We have made these laws to punish idiots basically.
- Breivik and the ISIS terrorists didn't attack the government, but the culture. The entire American culture is built on the difference between the state and the country, with multiple attacks on them. There are about 300 confirmed militia groups in the United States. Significant members include Timothy McVeigh, more deadly than Breivik and those Brussels bombers.
- The United States has 50% of voters voting on the Republican Party. That party is so right wing that in Belgium the extreme right wing party Vlaams Belang prefers Clinton and Sanders above Rubio and Cruz, of course after their favorite candidate Donald Trump. France's Marine Le Pen went as far as to say she is not as extreme as Donald Trump. The major face of extreme right wing Europe didn't want to be seen as extreme as the Republican Party. Major difference being that Wilders, Vlaams Belang, LePen and UKIP simply don't get their polling numbers.

 

[Irminsul]

Holy crap it's like someone skipped history or something about the separation of powers or something.

Yeah, I really don't get why some people think the government currently voted in would have any say in fining people for hate speech. That's not how any modern democracy works.

And the slow erosion of rights that has been happening in Hungary and which the government plans to do in Poland certainly isn't based on hate speech laws.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Surely under the law #jesuischarlie this should have been allowed?

 

[Moral Panic]

Holy crap it's like someone skipped history or something about the separation of powers or something.

The government sets the laws and the judiciary applies them. A judge can't decide to not fine someone because he doesn't like the laws the politicians set, separation of powers or not. A judge is not the one who decided that denying the holocaust is a crime.

 

[RedShift]

I think it's easy to condemn Holocaust denial laws when you're in a country the Holocaust didn't happen in.

The idea of laws like that makes me very uneasy but maybe I'd feel differently if I lived somewhere that happened.

I mean at the just plain stupid end of the spectrum, it's still considered treason in the UK to say you want the UK to become a republic.

Until very recently, the UK's laws on libel were extremely biased in favor of the person accusing the other of libel.

Lots of 'hate speech' laws are also, I think, somewhat questionable.

Wait, do you literally think this is true? Do you have a source?

Jeremy Corbyn openly wants the UK to become a republic. As do thousands of other people, and an entire pressure group, called Republic.