Free Speech in Europe

[JeffR]

reckless wrote:

“I couldn’t agree with this more. And stupid people like Van Gogh where fuelling these feelings. That’s why we have laws to shut them up if they’re not able to clean up there act.”

Reading the June 10th article shows clearly that your “laws” aren’t “enough” for many of your people. They take their prejudices out on the Muslims.

“But I guess you’re right. While we are trying to do the right thing, we’re not always able to do as we preach. At least we’re not preaching hatred. Unlike some.”

Who would that be? I’m not going to interpret for you. Say it plain.

"I fail to see the hypocrisy. And I fail to see the humor.

Oh wait, I do see some. How about being called to tolerant towards muslims first and no tolerant enough a couple of posts later."

Where did I call you “too tolerant?” If someone else did, they don’t speak for me.

You wrote:

“And regarding our relations with Muslims, we are not blind to their problems and potential risk. But we choose to have an open dialogue with most of them.
And we don’t support people that think it would be a good idea to liven up this discussion by introducing words like “towell heads” “ragheads” “cameljockey’s” or “goatf*ckers” (the latter one being Van Gogh favorit expression).”

How exactly was an American to interpret that? You are clearly making a broad generalization.

Look up the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims in the U.S. since 9/11. Now compare it to Europe.

You, sir, have a far greater problem.

You calling us out for prejudice while having a far larger problem than we, is hypocrisy.

Clear enough?

By the way, eventually you will realize that using MTV/CNN/french newspapers to characterize Americans, is a mistake.

JeffR

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
…
Anyway, let me give you an example about what raises some eye-brows in Europe.

Early jan 2005 Lawrence Summers, president at Harvard, noted only few woman hold high positions in universities and science in general. He wondered that, besides the obvious obstacles as discrimination and the choice of motherhood, perhaps genetics was involved. Couldn’t it be that women were less “extremely” gifted? And this “extremely” has to be taken quite litteraly, meaning very much, but also hardly any. So Summers suggested ever so carefull, that perhaps the fact that women are underrepresented in high positions in science is somehow linked to the fact that they are also outnumbered in mental institutions.

He was crucified for it in the US.

He wouldn’t have been in Europe. In fact, he would have gotten broad support as his assumptions are nearly accepted as fact.

Why is it that you can not say in the US what is nearly accepted as the truth in Europe?
Why are the liberals so entrenched in political correctness that they prefer to ignore the obvious?

Again, I don’t want to start a pissing contest here. I’m just saying that the rules of public discussion are different in the US and Europe.[/quote]

While I would be (and come to think of it, I was) the first one to criticize Harvard, which as a university claims to be a bastion of free speech, there is a categorical difference between the government using the police power to shut down disfavored political points of view and from private individuals expressing their own points of view to criticize strongly something with which they disagree.

The political-correctness garbage in the U.S. is the latter, as wrongheaded as I think it is; the hate-speech laws in Europe are the former. And the former are much more dangerous, because they set the precedent that the government can set the parameters on the political discussion.

Even – and perhaps especially – views you think are wrongheaded should be allowed to be expressed, and loudly. It exposes them to the light of counterargument and social critique, rather than allowing them to fester underground as a little “persecuted” community, where they can make the argument that the reason they aren’t allowed to speak is because everyone is afraid to face the truth. That argument tends to hold a lot more water when a point of view is actually being repressed, regardless of the argument’s actual merit.

[Wreckless]

Free speach is only possible in a civil discussion. Free speach is not jumping on a table, pointing fingers and namecalling. That might be free speach for the morons, but it will never lead to a civilised discussion.

You seem to imply that in Europe, people left, right and center are gagged because they express an opinion that isn’t popular. This is just not the truth.

The hate-speech laws are used in very specific cases. For instance when someone denies the holocaust.
You can’t really argue with these people. They sweep aside the testimonies, the material proof and then claim the holocaust simply didn’t happen. Still, they manage to persuade some gullible fools. They must be stopped, they must be shut up. The law doesn’t give you the right to tell factuall lies and present them as the truth.

The hate-speech laws are also used when people actively promote racism. It’s not used when someone prefers to hire a local boy over a muslim. It is used when someone argues muslims shouldn’t be intitled to have a job.
Do you really think these people would contribute to a meaningfull discussion? That somehow their input might lead to anything usefull?

The hate-laws are not used when people make these comments in their local pub. They are only used when they are made public in print for instance. No doubt the burdon of proof plays a role here.

I really don’t understand why someone would even try to defend the right to spread lies and hate. What good will come from this? Is the right to free speach for some people more important than the right to live in peace for others?
How will they react when they are exposed to the free speach from others?
How does the typical KKK member react when a black man whistles at a white women? Or doesn’t the right to free speech extend to whistling blacks?

We all know how they reacted when black people registred to vote. Is ones right to free speech more important than someone elses right to vote? What if their right to free speech prevents others from voting, by intimidating them? What then?

And please, again, no pissing contest, these are just examples.

No right is absolute. I will always collide with somebody elses right.

[vroom]

Wreckless, some people believe there is only one correct way to do things, and that they of course are magically living in this wondrous state of correctness.

Never mind the flaws inherent in any system developed by and inhabited by humans.

We aren’t done figuring out what works best, not by a long shot. We’ve got some things that certainly seem to work pretty good though. Sadly, there are many rough edges to be worked out, one way or another.