Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#81

Post by smutticus »

The author fails to mention that different countries in the west have vastly different free speech laws. He then goes on to use examples from multiple countries to prove his 4 main points.

Am I expected to believe that the UK and the USA have the same free speech laws? UK libel law, which he doesn't even bring up, is regularly used to restrict free speech. German laws against denying the holocaust, which he never brings up, restrict free speech.

I fail to see this imminent common threat facing western free speech through his omissions and forced equating of examples from multiple jurisdictions.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#82

Post by javajosh »

guylhem wrote: post #28
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

> we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people Benjamin Franklin addressed that issue "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Sometimes, I wonder what's the next target after free speech. I don't think farmers are a strategic objective. If I had to make that call,…

>Benjamin Franklin addressed that issue "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I'm simply stating a fact, not making a judgement call. The main thrust of my comment was the lack of plain speaking in that article. It's not a very comfortable fact, but there it is: society often makes practical, rather than principled, choices about stuff like this.

So, more about how I personally feel about it:

I think it sucks that people get so infuriated when their religious figure or texts are abused or insulted. But it seems more practical to accept that the group has a mental problem, and to treat them with special care, than to provoke and punish when they act out. And what, after all, is so hard about not insulting Mohammad? Frankly, I think it's a genrally bad idea to insult anyone anyway, and while it's annoying in some abstract way that there is ONE GUY I really shouldn't insult...well, honestly, I don't feel all that oppressed by the prospect.

>Sometimes, I wonder what's the next target after free speech.

Well, first you're kind of tacitly assuming that all free speech has been destroyed by the islamists. It hasn't. A very narrow sliver of it has, and that's a shame, but let's not overstate the impact. The impurity of free speech is abhorrent - but what does this impurity get us? Attacked less? Saves some mentally unstable people some stress? Saves some lives maybe?

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#84

Post by bitwiseXOR »

w1ntermute wrote: post #74
potatolicious wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force assimilation." It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little bath…

> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward , not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists…

your bigoted antiquated opinions about immigration would never fly in this day and age, thank goodness. America has opened its legs culturally to the world, especially after WWII, and there will be dire economic and cultural consequences should she close them. accept it and move on, your daughter may not marry white. sorry.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#85

Post by javajosh »

gleenn wrote: post #72
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

The real unfortunate thing is that while you may make the personal decision to not take the risk, legislation makes that decision for everyone. I'd definitely err on the side not letting violent extremists censor me.

Last I checked you have the option to insult Mohammad as much as you like! There is no limit on your free speech - many of the laws mentioned in the article that might apply were from Britian, so assuming you're from the US, you're good to say what you like, and take that personal risk.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#86

Post by jackpirate »

linuxhansl wrote: post #21

"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever is might be). If people would be sufficiently secure about their religious views any criticism would just be ignored and people would go on about their business. (Well, the truth is that people are angry to begin with, and religion is just a nice excuse to vent t…

Blasphemy is not the same as criticism. On one extreme of criticism, you use reasoned academic arguments to critique specific doctrines you find unappealing. On the other extreme, you can insult people's culture without being productive at all.

Blasphemy is much closer to the second than the first.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#87

Post by simonh »

potatolicious wrote: post #77
w1ntermute wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in order to shut down the KKK. There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America, and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward , not getting rid of people who are already here. > The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists…

> "(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African Americans)." I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as immigrants per se... It seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there. Anyways, that's a nitpick. > "Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here." Right, but how d…

Our current government here in the UK is doing this at the moment. They even revoked a university's license to accept foreign students on a technicality. We make a fortune out of foreign students and with our demographics need them far more than the US, but according to the Daily Mail reading grey brigade if we packed them all off home, all our troubles would be over. Because simplistic, sweeping, poorly thought out solutions to deep rooted cultural and economic issues always work out so well.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#88

Post by westicle »

chumma wrote: post #79
coolestuk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The introduction of islam to much of the world was through trade, just the same as the christians. " Would you care to provide evidence for that assertion about trade rather than jihad? There is evidence that for areas like Indonesia & Malaysia, trade was the route. For almost everywhere else, it was by war. Next you'll be telling me that the hundreds of years in which islam used violence to dominate Spain was a Gol…

> In the 13 years he was in Mecca, he attained 150 followers. In Medina he embraced war, assassination, slave-taking and robbery. By the time he died, all of Arabia was muslim. So would you please care to provide evidence to this assertion? How someone with a mere 150 followers could control a whole nation ?

Voldemort managed.

(http://hpmor.com/chapter/34)

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#89

Post by natep »

w1ntermute wrote: post #75
olalonde wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would use some more empathy and adopt a bit more diplomatic attitude if I were you. There will be suicide bombers well after Arabs go back to being desert nomads. It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up.

> It's not all that expensive to blow yourself up. 9/11 was estimated to have required ~$400-500k. And I'd say it'd be quite a bit more expensive to repeat that feat these days.

More than a few people have blown themselves up since 9/11.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#90

Post by simonh »

coolestuk wrote: post #37
milfot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick question, do you actually think it is the 'militant' or the 'islam' that scares the west? And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'. The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religio…

Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children. This was all based on emulating the behaviour of Mohammed (known as sunnah in islamic practice); Mohammed took 20% of the spoils from his army of warriors. (Some describe him as the profi…

"Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children."

s/is islamic became muslim/was colonial became christian/

"Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind."

Try a search for the word "crusade" on wikipedia. You might find it enlightening.

Post reply on HN