Comment by losteric
9 years ago
All of civilization has been about limiting specific individual freedoms in order to guarantee others to the collective.
Even in the US, freedom of speech is not unlimited. Perhaps we're finally learning that the freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.
It's about time we lost our naivety. Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.
Naivety is thinking you can open the Pandora's box of government limiting speech based on what is popularly acceptable in an emotional moment, and not eventually having any speech against government or incumbent politicians or ideas eventually labeled in the future as hate speech and banned.
The reason you don't go down the path of Europe in this regard is because Europeans are already losing representation, and democracy fails when people aren't free to speak their minds and express their ideas, love it or hate it. That's how a truly free society actually works.
As a European, I feel well-represented. Whatever that means.
And even though I happen to life in a country where anybody waving a swastika in the last 70 years went to jail, I can still criticise the Government in any way I want.
In fact, the Economist, not usually suspected to harbour communists, considers most of Europe to be more democratic than the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...
"Europeans are already losing representation"
What does that mean?
In my particular part of Europe we have rather more political representation than we did even 20 years ago.
> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.
Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. Do you really want to set the standard that if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint? I guarantee you this won't play out how you want.
> Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.
The US has strong protections on free speech and other fundamental rights because "our European brethren" didn't, and therefore treated their colonies so poorly as to almost universally engender armed insurrection. Nothing much changed in this regard then or in WWII, so I'm not really sure what "lesson" you think you're referring to; that Germany should have more aggressively censored anti-incumbent sentiment in the aftermath of WWI? Yes, what a lovely lesson.
>> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.
> Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test.
I think it's an essential question about where to draw the line. Obviously there must be limits to speech: You can't shout 'kill all the X' to a group of people with baseball bats threatening a group of X (or commit slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc.). Generally, it's almost always hard to find a clear, simple rule that applies effectively in all cases of reality - morality and law are like algorithms in that respect. That's why we have judges, juries, and sophisticated laws.
But here's a proposed, relatively functional solution that is simple: Draw the line at intolerance - the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. A few reasons: 1) Intolerance is a parasite on the rule of tolerance and free speech; it tries to stop others from having those rights. 2) It violates the basic social contract: You tolerate and respect me, and I'll do the same for you. If you break that contract, why should I keep tolerating you? 3) Look up the "Paradox of tolerance".
> if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint
I didn't see anyone mention violence.
> Draw the line at intolerance - the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself.
The law should be codified hypocrisy?
By this logic, we should we be allowed to steal from people who believe in communism because they don't believe that property rights are morally justified. If they don't believe in private property, why should they get it?
Here's a better idea: don't start shit, and if someone starts shit with you, you can do whatever needs to be done to protect your rights. This has the advantages of A) not being absurdly hypocritical and B) not violating people's rights in an effort to preempt behavior you think might hypothetically emerge from the expression of those rights.
> I didn't see anyone mention violence.
How do you propose to enforce censorship laws? Ask nicely?