Europe and freedom, not getting it...

[ballen0351]

So who is the authority on whats allowed to be said? 100 years ago things said today would have been too extream. And extream speech is not always bad. Without free speech we would have never had civil rights marches.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Playing games?

Come over to my house for a week and we can see how much gamesmanship is left after a day.

No, no games. The History of Europe is nothing to play games with. No matter what billi thinks he read in whatever book or fish wrap.
There are just a few things that are. Like the misconception that saying whatever pops into your head, however asinine is a right.
It is not. It is a lofty ideal a handful of wealthy white men put on paper, at a time when Katherine the Great was considered progressive.

It's a right here in the USA, and I'm glad it is. But this is what I was saying; the US values freedom of speech differently than Europe. You've just proven it.

So, again: If you truly believe the Holocaust never happened, you are a tart. That is a generic you, not you personally.
If you don't really believe it and still spout it, you are obviously out to hurt, either feelings or people.

You're really missing the point. I have to presume it is intentional. Yes, anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened is a moron. However, in the USA, one is free to be a moron and to say things which reflect their stupidity. In many nations of Europe, it's a crime and you can be put in jail for spouting your crackpot jackassery. You argue that's a good thing; very well. But FREEDOM OF SPEECH it is NOT.

You cannot admit that some speech cannot be spoken because it is untrue and still claim freedom of speech. The two are mutually exclusive.

Y'all know where to leave the negative rep.
TTFN

I think you're getting way too wrapped up in this.

The point was, and is, that under the US concept of freedom of speech, a person's right to their opinion and to speak that opinion is not predicated on it being true. A person who hates black people can say it. He can write about it, make websites about it, he can wear white robes and dance around shouting about how bad black people are. And people who think he's wrong can do and say the opposite. That is freedom, to us.

Your 'freedom' would deny the person who is 'wrong' or 'evil' from speaking or writing about their beliefs. If that's what you want in your nation, that's your business. But please don't call it freedom; it isn't.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography of Voltaire, said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That is the essence of freedom of speech to us here in the USA. Your point of view is that there are some things so horrible, so soaked in blood, that they cannot be said by anyone. Again, if that's your opinion, so be it. But it is not freedom.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So who is the authority on whats allowed to be said? 100 years ago things said today would have been too extream. And extream speech is not always bad. Without free speech we would have never had civil rights marches.

I have said this before. Rights are never defined in the middle. They are defined at the edges. Only the Larry Flynts of the world can draw us to the point of knowing what is and is not obscene. Only the 'Piss Christs' can take us to the edge of what is freedom of expression. Only Henry Miller. Only McCarthy. Only the civil rights marches. Only the Woolworth's lunch counter. Only the KKK wanting to march down the main street of Skokie, Illinois. Not average everyday citizens going about their business.

Freedom is messy stuff and it hurts people's feelings a lot. The one thing that freedom requires the most from everyone is that they turn their heads if they do not like what they see, so long as what offends them is a constitutional right. Unlike Europe, the USA has never stated that anyone has the right not to be offended.

 

[granfire]

So who is the authority on whats allowed to be said? 100 years ago things said today would have been too extream. And extream speech is not always bad. Without free speech we would have never had civil rights marches.

without freedom of speech you would also have missed out on the burning crosses. So what is your point?

 

[Tez3]

I'd be interested to know which unions in which European countries are killing people as Bili alleges.

Holocaust denial...so you go to prison for saying the Shoah never happened, actually no you don't. You have to do a bit more than that. It is illegal in two countries, Austria and Germany for reasons that should be fairly obvious. You will be charged and taken to court, fined most likely and reviled by proper thinking people if found guilty. If you spout Shoah denial and race hatred inciting violence against people and you are found guilty you will most likely go to prison.

You have to understand that Holocaust deniers aren't just saying it never happened but are doing so to cause racial hatred and incite violence. The right wing groups who spout hatred of non Aryans are looking to bring back the Nazi era. They'd like nothing better than rivers of blood running through the streets. Americans can criticise as much as they like but while they get mad at any perceived slur on their country some feel they can sling as much mud as they like at us, without their having the slightest inkling of an idea of Europe's history or even what it's like now.

As we have gay marriages and gay people in the armed forces as well as our own Court of Human Rights perhaps some looking at what freedoms we do have, and there are some you don't have is called for.
http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Page31a.htm

Jeremy Rifkin, author of The European Dream, sums up the difference between the idea of "freedom" in Europe vs. America, explaining why the European concept is more evolved and progressive:

(Pages 13 – 14)
"The American and European dreams are, at their core, about two diametrically opposed ideas of freedom and security. Americans hold a negative definition of what it means to be free and, thus, secure. For us, freedom has long been associated with autonomy. If one is autonomous, he or she is not dependent on others or vulnerable to circumstances outside of his or her control. To be autonomous, one needs to be propertied. The more wealth one amasses, the more independent one is in the world. One is free by becoming self-reliant and an island unto oneself. With wealth comes exclusivity, and with exclusivity comes security.

The new European Dream, however, is based on a different set of assumptions about what constitutes freedom and security. For Europeans, freedom is not found in autonomy but in embeddedness. To be free is to have access to a myriad of interdependent relationships with others. The more communities one has access to, the more options and choices one has for living a full and meaningful life. With relationships comes inclusivity, and with inclusivity comes security."

 

[Jenna]

When a nation is persuaded / coerced into giving sovereignty to the requirements of continental economic union instead of the interests of its citizens then yes, freedom is eroded.

Europe as a monolithic entity is, to say the least, not pleased when member nations break rank and assert that they have every right to govern theirselves and not be dictated centrally.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/german-plan-savings-czar-finds-taker-15476408#.TzI5t-Q_hlM (on Greece not accepting German financial overseeing "czar")

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/eu-treaty-cameron-sarkozy-row (on French / German annoyance over David Cameron's veto)

The desire for an oligarchic Europe is absolutely an infringement upon the individual self-governing right of nations and by inference upon the individual citizen therein.

 

[ballen0351]

without freedom of speech you would also have missed out on the burning crosses. So what is your point?

The point is that's the beauty of it. The burning crosses were the motivation for change. Would there have been a civil rights movement without freedom of speech? Maybe but it would have been alot more bloody and would have taken alot longer. Its because of speeches that got the message out that changed the country. You have to take the bad if you want the good.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Holocaust denial...so you go to prison for saying the Shoah never happened, actually no you don't. You have to do a bit more than that. It is illegal in two countries, Austria and Germany for reasons
You have to understand that Holocaust deniers aren't just saying it never happened but are doing so to cause racial hatred and incite violence. The right wing groups who spout hatred of non Aryans are looking to bring back the Nazi era. They'd like nothing better than rivers of blood running through the streets. Americans can criticise as much as they like but while they get mad at any perceived slur on their country some feel they can sling as much mud as they like at us, without their having the slightest inkling of an idea of Europe's history or even what it's like now.

All you are doing is explaining (as if I did not understand) WHY Holocaust Denial is illegal in parts of Europe. I get it. My point is that regardless of your reasons for it, it is a restriction on freedom of speech. All rights have limits; you can't yell fire in a crowded theater in the USA, either. But we do not draw the lines where you do.

Again, this seems to be a point lost, so I'll try once more. I am not arguing that you are right or wrong to imprison people who deny the Holocaust (or whatever). I am saying it is not freedom of speech. Argue that it is or is not freedom of speech, but please quit telling me why you do what you do. I totally get that part.

 

[Tez3]

All you are doing is explaining (as if I did not understand) WHY Holocaust Denial is illegal in parts of Europe. I get it. My point is that regardless of your reasons for it, it is a restriction on freedom of speech. All rights have limits; you can't yell fire in a crowded theater in the USA, either. But we do not draw the lines where you do.

Again, this seems to be a point lost, so I'll try once more. I am not arguing that you are right or wrong to imprison people who deny the Holocaust (or whatever). I am saying it is not freedom of speech. Argue that it is or is not freedom of speech, but please quit telling me why you do what you do. I totally get that part.

Actually I was answering Bili, again, who always gets things **** about face. He was making statements that are incorrect, I wasn't answering your point at all so don't get ratty with me. He totally doesn't get why we do what we do and conctantly choses to misinterpret what happens outside his borders. Why you think that post was directed at you I don't know but it wasn't. If it's a restriction on speech what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? If I or anyone else posts up that something is a restriction of speech in America I'd get certain of the posters ranting at me, I'd get neg reps saying how anti American I am. I get neg rep for daring to post on something in the American politics bit as it is.

Holocaust denial is a restriction of speech? well who do you think actually cares after the years of horror, and I don't just mean the war, that Europe went through. We have people here intent on another Holocaust, intent of destroying millions of people if they can and you're worrying about Holocaust denial thousands of miles away from you? There's 50 countries in Europe, a couple of countries have Holocaust denial as a criminal offence yet 'Europe' denies free speech?


Jenna, Europe is as cranky and as indiviudal as it's ever been, much of the EU trying to stop countries doing things is a myth made up by politicians.
http://www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/eu-myths

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There's 50 countries in Europe, a couple of countries have Holocaust denial as a criminal offence yet 'Europe' denies free speech?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Care to rethink that? I count 17 countries that ban it. And the entire EU supports a 3-year prison term for denying genocide.

As a result a compromise has been reached within the EU and while the EU has not prohibited Holocaust denial outright, a maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations for "denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[49][50]

I think I'll let my statement stand. Europe does not have freedom of speech in the way that the US thinks of freedom of speech.

 

[Tez3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Care to rethink that? I count 17 countries that ban it. And the entire EU supports a 3-year prison term for denying genocide.



I think I'll let my statement stand. Europe does not have freedom of speech in the way that the US thinks of freedom of speech.

No, there are 50 countries in Europe you are thinking of the European Community which is a political entity not Europe. In the EU and in Europe we still decide what we do in our countries despite what Americans think. We don't think of as ourselves as superior as your post shows you to think you are, the article I posted a link to is correct, we go our way while you think everyone wants to be you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, there are 50 countries in Europe you are thinking of the European Community which is a political entity not Europe. In the EU and in Europe we still decide what we do in our countries despite what Americans think. We don't think of as ourselves as superior as your post shows you to think you are, the article I posted a link to is correct, we go our way while you think everyone wants to be you.

I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I accept that our notions of freedom are different, and come from different backgrounds and experiences. However, I assert, and I believe I have proven, that if you deny freedom of speech based on such content, you are 'less free' than another nation that does not. That's not really something that can be argued; it's a fact. It doesn't make the US superior. I was raised here and value our freedoms as we have them; which is only natural.

 

[Tez3]

I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I accept that our notions of freedom are different, and come from different backgrounds and experiences. However, I assert, and I believe I have proven, that if you deny freedom of speech based on such content, you are 'less free' than another nation that does not. That's not really something that can be argued; it's a fact. It doesn't make the US superior. I was raised here and value our freedoms as we have them; which is only natural.

As I clicked onto this thread the thread above was title 'Army silences Army Padres' so yes you have far more freedom of speech than we do, not. What I think many don't understand is that America is one country, when you say Europe you are talking about 50 countries all different, all with their own customs, all with their own laws which if they belong to the EU they may sign up to agree on certain things but doesn't mean they do actually put them into practice. You can't compare that many countries with one, yours.
Bill you may not be saying your country is superior but the tone of the OP certainly is, I'm still waiting to find out from him which countries unions are busy killing people as he stated, perhaps you can't understand the frustration we here feel when such broad sweeping and incorrect statements are made by people like him. We don't point out flaws that we think we see in your system, and point the finger saying oh look how much better we are.

Holocaust denial may be a criminal offence but the procedures follow legal lines ... arrest, evidence submitted to court and juries deciding guilt or innocence, there's recourse to the European Courts of Justice, you get your day in court to say what you wish, it's left to the people ie the jury to decide. If the people didn't want this law there would be protests and believe me the people of Europe can certainly protest, make your OWS look like a kindergarten outing, they don't, rightly or wrongly in your eyes that's the will of the people apart from the racist, right wing murdering bastards and frankly we don't care about them other than to want to see them shrivel and die out as their predecessors did. Complete freedom of speech is something no one has whatever you think.

 

[ballen0351]

As I clicked onto this thread the thread above was title 'Army silences Army Padres' so yes you have far more freedom of speech than we do, not. .

Well the Military has always had restrictions on its freedoms.

Other then that I have no dog in this fight. I think Freedom of speech is a good thing but Ive never lived in Europe so I dont know how the laws work there.

 

[Tez3]

Well the Military has always had restrictions on its freedoms.

Other then that I have no dog in this fight. I think Freedom of speech is a good thing but Ive never lived in Europe so I dont know how the laws work there.

However someone, an American, thought it unusual enough to post up here for discussion.

Europe has vastly different cultures, different laws, even the EU can't make them into one identical homogenous mass.

 

[CanuckMA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Care to rethink that? I count 17 countries that ban it. And the entire EU supports a 3-year prison term for denying genocide.



I think I'll let my statement stand. Europe does not have freedom of speech in the way that the US thinks of freedom of speech.

Has to do with the fact that Europe went through the horrors of what that kind of speech can do.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

1- Hong Kong
6- Canada
10- US
14-UK

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

1-Finland
8-Canada
13-UK
15-US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World
Ranks US, Canada and UK about the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#Current_assessments
Ranks Canada ahead of both the US and UK who are cited as having 'problems'.


So, the rank/opinion varies with cited source.
I feel pretty free. I expect that in either Canada or the UK I'd feel about the same. Most of what I do is legal in all 3 countries, and the little bit that's iffy is modifyable to comply with local statute. Are there 'problems'? Sure. But the citizens of those countries can deal with them. I can stay home and avoid them. Hell, I can own a sword in the US. Not true in Australia. So Oz is off my list of places to immigrate to, though I might visit sometime.

 

[billc]

That would be Italy Tez,

In Italy, as Walter Olson writes at cato-at-liberty.org, Labor Professor Pietro Ichino, who challenges the power of Italian labor unions, fears for his life and has lived under armed escort for the past ten years. He drives around in an armored car and has two plainclothes policemen always nearby because people on the left want to murder him for his views. This is not paranoia: as Olson points out, two other labor law professors, Massimo D’Antona and Mario Biagi, who held the same views, have been murdered.

Now true, the actual shooters were lefties from the red brigade, but the guys were obviously sympathetic to Italian labor unions.

 

[David43515]

Ah, no. Plenty of people do die from having too much freedom.

However, strangely enough, with greater discipline comes greater freedom.
While under a seemingly stiff corset of rules there is enough room for everybody to speak out.

That sounds like a line straight out of "1984". Just reading it and realizing that you might be serious gives me the chills. By limiting speech, you limit thoughts by labeling them as unacceptable. Muzzling an idiot denying that the holacost or the moon landings took place, is no different than muzzling Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the sun or Darwin for presenting the theory of evolution. Free speech is like the internet, there`s a lot of garbage but it`s by wading through it that we find the gems.Even free speech from a racist can inspire a discussion that brings about more equality.

Want to know one thing you can`t do in Europe that you can do in the US? I`ll give you two. You can build a mosque with a mineret in the US but it`s forbidden by law in Switzerland. You can wear a burkha in public the US but not in France. Freedom means no one can tell me I have to do these things, it doesn`t mean my govt telling me I`m not allowed to.

 

[David43515]

Has to do with the fact that Europe went through the horrors of what that kind of speech can do.

No, speech didn`t do anything. Ideas didn`t do anything. Thoughts didn`t do anything. People did, because they chose to. Blaming it on something they heard is like a rapist blaming his act on having a few drinks before hand or on the length of his victim`s skirt. It`s a sad excuse, nothing more.