Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

231–240 of 284 posts

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

#231
post #20

This is really interesting in light of the recent reddit fiasco involving violentacrez and voyeuristic photos being published. I mean people were clearly up in arms about the invasion of privacy and supported subreddits like creepshots being banned despite the fact that they're perfectly legal. I wonder whether these same people see the similiarity between themselves and Muslims who want the blasphemous publication o…

Misogynistic communities are not at all the same thing as a community hostile to religious belief.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved to Europe somewhat recently, and I haven't seen any tolerance or understanding: people are incredibly racist towards anyone with non-white skin, and it's socially acceptable to make snide comments about race in polite society. The U.S. (where I come from) is not exactly a pinnacle of race relations, but I was shocked by how much worse it is in Europe. There was a professor in my department of Bangladeshi heri…

I moved to Europe somewhat recently, and I haven't seen any tolerance or understanding: people are incredibly racist towards anyone with non-white skin, and it's socially acceptable to make snide comments about race in polite society. Oh? At least in Finland, the situation is actually the exact opposite of that. As far as I know, the same applies all over Scandinavia and Central Europe.

Weirdly, I was just in Finland two weeks ago, and the first person who randomly approached me and my Finnish friend in a bar in Turku was some drunk guy ranting about immigrants, who wouldn't leave us alone! We thought pretending neither of us could speak Finnish would solve the problem, but it didn't. My friend enjoyed provoking him in English while pretending not to be Finnish, though. They had some kind of argument about "True Finns", and about Janne Holmén.

In Copenhagen I would say things aren't too bad, but I wouldn't call it a great degree of tolerance or understanding, more "tolerance" in the sense of "will grit my teeth and tolerate you". Outside Copenhagen, things get progressively worse. And the government doesn't treat the religions equally: the Church of Scientology, of all things, got permission to build a church in Copenhagen, but the government is still holding up construction of a mosque.

And Central Europe? It's no fun at all, and possibly physically unsafe, to be Pakistani or black in Poland...

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

#233
post #39

Except free speech only exists in US, doesnt exist in any Europe country for instance. In US you can say almost anything you want about anything. Not the case in Uk or France. If you deny holocaust in France for instance , you're going to be prosecuted. So while the article is interesting it only applies to USA.

It's a bit stretched to assert that European countries don't have Free Speech. Germany, for instance, grants Freedom of Expression in its "Grundgesetz" (its fundamental law), and states that "there is no censorship", though there may be exceptions as defined by the law. For example, it's illegal in Germany to slander or insult someone, or to deny the Holocaust.

I don't agree especially with the latter. It's ridiculous to assert the Holocaust didn't happen - I've visited the remains of the Dachau Concentration Camp, and I won't ever forget that place in my life - but it's equally ridiculous to disallow questioning it. I just pity the people who do it.

But again, it's not exactly right to say that Free Speech doesn't exist here in Europe. I'd say it's mostly the same situation as in the US - it's under attack and we, as the united inhabitants of this planet, need to stand up and fight back where-ever possible. Stop thinking in countries. Start thinking as a part of humanity as a whole.

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the ignorance and hate on that comment exceeded my daily quota and ruined my day. By the way, how do you downvote on HN? Do I need more score?

Yeah there's threshold for downvoting. Maybe 500? Not sure.

Yes 500 it is.

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

#235
This article reads like the middle of a European history textbook:

> such as Ireland, which in criminalized the “publication or utterance of blasphemous matter” deemed “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.” The Russian Duma ... proposed a law against “insulting religious beliefs.” Other countries allow the arrest of people who threaten strife by criticizing religions or religious leaders. In Britain, for instance, a 15-year-old girl was arrested two years for burning a Koran.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow this is a surprisingly hateful and ignorant comment for Hacker News and its not even getting downvoted.

Well technically it should be getting downvoted for being wrong. Here he is stating that he is taking an extremely America centric stance, and focused on the shortest path solution. Its the obvious answer most people come up with, and its dissection and discovery of weak spots is valuable for those who would usually come up with a similar shortest path answer. At the same time, he has accepted that he doesn't hold th…

Of course his right to say hateful things must be protected. But as a member of a community that values insightful comments, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is based mostly on his personal hate and ignorance.

Asking for a limit on immigration from islamic countries to or developing alternative energy sources still is pretty objective to me. But adding the " the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" makes it obvious where he is coming from.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well technically it should be getting downvoted for being wrong. Here he is stating that he is taking an extremely America centric stance, and focused on the shortest path solution. Its the obvious answer most people come up with, and its dissection and discovery of weak spots is valuable for those who would usually come up with a similar shortest path answer. At the same time, he has accepted that he doesn't hold th…

Of course his right to say hateful things must be protected. But as a member of a community that values insightful comments, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is based mostly on his personal hate and ignorance. Asking for a limit on immigration from islamic countries to or developing alternative energy sources still is pretty objective to me. But adding the " the Arabs will just go back to what they were b…

Your missing the point here.

Look at the thread, the responses and the clarifications. The least useful answers in terms of education value are the ones which focus on whether he was or isn't a bad person for saying it.

As I also point out, your concerns are handled when he gives up the moral ground. you don't have to follow something you know is wrong.

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

#238
post #140
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the cases you mention, in the past month alone we have also had a man given a community sentence for posting that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and a man arrested for creating a Facebook group praising the alleged killer of the two police officers in Greater Manchester. These all come under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits any "message or other matter that is…

Some more nooses to hang ourselves with here: http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm Most of this legislation came in under "think of the children" type laws to prevent critical discussion of the warmongering taking place in the last couple of decades (since just before the Gulf War). It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner.…

> It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing.

I'm fairly certain it is puritanism. Generally speaking it's the result of people thinking it is an appropriate role of law to enforce morality in society, rather than simply to prevent harm.

The older generations, who by and large decide on the legislation, are out of touch with the younger generations who have been brought up in a broadly secular, liberal social landscape, wherein people are less prudish, popular culture is far more sexualised and provocative, etc.

Young people can't quite get their heads around the arbitrary restrictions on their actions — why they are not allowed to say certain words, why they cannot use certain drugs, etc. — and you can't blame them. Dogmatism is everywhere.

> Editing to add: in my youth I called a policeman a "fascist cunt" and was told off. I was a) a couple of decades early and b) punished appropriately.

It depends on the officer and the context, but today that would probably secure you a Section 5 arrest.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At which point the discussion simply derails into a debate over whether you believe limitations to freedom of speech are ever acceptable. As another note, don't forget to consider the second element- "temporary safety". If the safety purchased by showing greater deference to militant Islamism is not temporary, the quote is not applicable. I am not arguing that this is the case, merely reminding to think critically- h…

What safety is not temporary? And what liberty isn't essential? Writing style has changed over the centuries, to me this reads like he's also reminding us that liberty is essential, and safety is temporary - and that it always must be so.

What safety is not temporary?

Ok, you can be nit-picky and argue that no safety is truly timeless, but in that context the word "temporary" loses all meaning, as everything is temporary. Safety that lasts generations or for the duration of nations is clearly distinct from safety that lasts a season.

What liberty isn't essential?

Perhaps liberties that necessarily infringe on other people's liberties?

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that HN can operate how it wishes. I'm not sure that barring disgusting speech is "necessary," if only because "necessary" can be such a loaded word. reddit, for example, seems to have a principle of free speech, where there only a very specific things you are not allowed to say board-wide. So there is a fair amount of disgusting speech there. It seems to work for them -- although I have been slowly disengagi…

Don't some individual subreddits moderate fairly heavily? And the upvoting/downvoting also has the effect of hiding disliked speech.

Yes, they do, and the admins support lots of freedom and experimentation for the subreddit moderation policies. (Although there are "default" subreddits that are a little weird.)

The sitewide bans, to my recollection, are of only two things (besides that which is illegal): sexualized pictures of children, and doxxing.

Post reply on HN