-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
EU resists push to limit free speech at UN meeting
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
Boogie9IGN
Member
Good.
Ford Prefect
GAAAAAAAAY
Hey, speech doesn't grow on trees, EU.
Pikmindictator
Member
Kabouter said:
Exactly
Muslims want to limit free speech: Hell no!
Offending christians in some way should become a crime: Fuck Yeah!
BTW in the Netherlands there already is a special taskforce who check out cartoons, among other things, that might be offensive to religous groups.
Fucking hypocrits.
gutter_trash
Banned
the brains of Northern Europe + the balls of Southern Europe = a great Union
BobbyRobby
Member
JKBii said:
yeah, while i'm glad the EU is rejecting this, it is a little hypocritical that France outlaws holocaust denial, and i'm sure the muslim countries will call them out for this.
Earthstrike
Member
Wow, the netherlands? Sad to see the home of the enlightenment now slowly have those freedoms it is indirectly responsible for chip away.
(granted this is in part because of the huge muslim population, which will foster some portion of extremism, somewhat coercing people to perform certain actions)
(granted this is in part because of the huge muslim population, which will foster some portion of extremism, somewhat coercing people to perform certain actions)
Terrell said:
Of course I do, so long as they're not calling for active violence. I don't care what they're calling someone, or what they're preaching... unless it's "go to such and such address and lynch the people that live there for being an N-word/gay/chinese/hispanic/arab/eskimo/whatever"
There's always one person who has to pick holes in a good thing, isn't there?JKBii said:
I came in to post that too.
Of course Gaborn condones hate speech. Because he believes in free speech, and free speech can't be limited to the freedom to say things that you don't find offensive. If you believe in it, you have to be willing to allow racists and bigots to speak, and you have to defend their right to say things that you personally find deeply unpleasant.Terrell said:
Terrell condones censorship and the removal of the right to free speech confirmed. Learn something new every day.
You've got to come down on one side or the other eventually, and there's badness on both sides.
Well, it's clear you're not a Daily Mail reader...Gaborn said:
Always-honest
Banned
good. free speech for everyone.
Always-honest
Banned
Kabouter said:
indeed. The Netherlands should be the capital of free speech like it has always been.
Uhhh... have you ever met an anti-Semitic before? I met a whole bunch. During a prison tour. They were there for aggravated assault and murder of Jewish people. It's kind of the way they roll. And don't make me break out the studies on the correlation between hate speech and violence-based hate crimes.Gaborn said:
Besides, you're likening parody and critique of religion to disrespecting the dead and causing emotional distress to the loved ones they left behind. You... don't see an obvious problem with not making that distinction?
I also find a paradox in a mod defending freedom of speech when one of his responsibilities is to moderate conversations and limit the freedom of users to speak in accordance to the Terms of Use. Kinda hard to be a champion of free speech when your own position is at times in direct opposition to that.
Terrell said:
I've met anti-semites, yes. Heck, I've encountered the idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church who believe that you and I will both be burning in hell and have gone around the country for the last decade or so picketing funerals of gays (and more recently American troops). I think what they say is horrific, it's shameful, it's hurtful even. But I don't believe it should be criminal, UNLESS they're advocating the commission of a crime (they can believe I will burn in Hell so long as they don't act to put me there)
Terrell said:
Well, not quite China, but I do think you're missing an interesting experience. In my opinion there are 3 basic ways to deal with hatefulness. You can agree with it, you can ignore it, or you can try to understand it. Personally I find hate fascinating, what causes people to hate, what they think about different groups, why they believe what they believe (and yes, that's often different than the cause of the hate), etc. I think that it's important to understand a multitude of perspectives even those I vehemently reject. With that though, I need to sleep.
Terrell said:
You must be Canadian.
Being a moderator on a private forum is fine. As a private group, we've decided that only certain types of speech will be allowed here and the moderator is here to enforce those rules. If you violate those rules, you aren't jailed or fined by the government.
As far as which is worst, holocaust denial or insults against Mohammad, you are missing the point of protecting free speech. By barring one and not the other, you are saying those who find the former extremely offensive have opinions that matter and those who find the latter offensive do not. By barring both, you are saying anybody who complains loud enough has the right to stop the rest of us from saying whatever it is we want to say. By barring neither, you are saying no group of people have the authority to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable to be said. The only morally just society is the last one.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Gaborn said:
Well, they are allowed to think about it. They're not allowed to have speeches about it in front of people and etc, though.
EDIT: Oh, nevermind. France might have laws against that, although I'm kinda doubting that it's used in any other cases than the ones I mentioned above.
Mariah Carey
Member
Terrell said:
People have the right to disrespect the dead and cause emotional distress to their loved ones.
Don't get me wrong... I got no problem with people hating me, so long as 2 things are observed in conjunction with this hatred:Gaborn said:
1) Not submitting their hateful opinions as fact without proper evidence, and
2) Not pleading ignorance to documented and verified facts to support their position
In the case of Holocaust denial, both of those flaws are observed simultaneously. Combine this with the anti-Semitic vein and the knowledge that this breed of hate speech is very rarely without violent intent against Jews, and your argument appears like arguing that a discussion about whether cars or dogs are better is on the same level as advocation of puppies being drowned in a river because cats are superior.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
JKBii said:
But is it morally right to allow something that might very well lead to riots and deaths continue?
Mariah Carey
Member
Terrell said:
...But they are on the same level. At least in terms of legality.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Terrell said:
Dude, those two points you bring up could be applied to a lot of stuff and not only political. You're saying it's okay with irrational hate if they're saying "only my opinion -- not fact!"?
It's hardly private if it can be read by anyone. That's like saying newspapers are "private" expression because only journalists can submit articles. But if that's the case, why was everyone up in arms about the Mohammed cartoons?JKBii said:
Besides, if you're going to advocate "all or nothing", then... actions speak louder than words, don't they? If I should be allowed to say whatever I want, I should be allowed to speak it WHEREVER I want, too. Or is it only OK outside the protective bubble? If you won't limit what's said, shouldn't have any right to limit where it's said, either.
If it's stated as an opinion, it disallows the use of said hate speech as a means of subjugation or social control and is not admissible as a rational defense for a person's behaviors.ItsInMyVeins said:
While you can say whatever you want, you also have to take responsibility for those actions. So if you say something that will incite imminent violence, and somebody kills someone else after listening to one of your speeches, you can be held partially responsible.ItsInMyVeins said:
But holocaust denial doesn't even fall into this category, as you can say you don't think the holocaust happened without saying you think a man should kill his Jewish neighbor.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Terrell said:
I don't see how that's related at all. There's a difference between being able to say whatever you want and forcing it upon people.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Terrell said:
Whether you say "this is factual" or simply leave that out (being an opinion instead) the results are still the same.
Terrell said:
Their message hasn't been force upon you since you can easily walk away from there at that point. According to the logic in your examples you're forcing your views upon me right now.
Terrell said:
Newspapers are also private. Allowing anybody to read the message is irrelevant, what matters is who you allow to write the message.
Limits on where you can say things exist because people can own private forums (like newspapers or message boards). If the owner of a newspaper decides not to run certain articles or a message board decides not to allow certain content to be posted, that is their right as the proprietor of those forums. You have the right to create your own newspaper or your own message board and say whatever you want there.
Mariah Carey
Member
Terrell said:
Somebody owns that public building (in that sense, the building is actually 'private.' Even if the building is truly 'public', it's still owned by the government). If someone's making a speech in that building the building owner disapproves of, they can remove the speaker.
- Status