However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.
So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference.
A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.
In case you didn't get the memo, here is a primer on how to turn a democracy into a totalitarian system:
1. Invent an external scapegoat ('the enemy')
2. Polarize: Either you're with us or with them. Mediating center positions and compromises belong to 'the enemy'. Argue that you're for the simple, honest-working men and against the elites, who belong to 'the enemy'.
3. As part of point 2, push radical radical positions into the public discourse to erode social control mechanisms. ('Why can't I say X' where X is something despicable, like being a racist, being for for genocide, etc., but dressed into a seemingly legitimate 'arguments' and 'concerns'.)
4. Instil fear of the external enemy and, as much as possible, terror against the internal enemy on the streets. Ideally, there should be bands of people on the streets who mug or kill perceived enemies (e.g. the S.A., Bürgerwehren, death squadrons, etc.).
5. As a result of 3-4, once a certain threshold is reached, public discussion has been radicalized and mediating center positions have been quenched. Voting will become a false dilemma between us and them.
6. Seize power by vote or coup, eradicate the remaining control mechanisms, eradicate free media and put them under state control (in a fight against 'fake media'), eradicate remaining political opponents by abusing the justice system (anti-corruption laws work well).
The idea behind limiting freedom of speech is to prevent 2-3 from reaching a critical threshold that enables 4 & 5.
Sorry if I sound frustrated. But I just think all this anti-free speech is a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms of the rising far-right, not a well thought-out strategy of preserving liberal democracy.
"Fascists", "racists" and other wonderful terms are the same scapegoats, but used by other ideological movements for their own benefit. Everything you describe can be attributed to them as well. What's funny is that they basically give fascists and others power because they use these terms to discredit everyone who opposes them, thus making descent human beings be silent, while the common population slowly becomes angry and the only support among politicians they could find are before mentioned "fascists" (of which many aren't actually fascists at all, they just see potential benefits of expressing such ideas). Don't try to rationalize censorship. Don't paternalize common population. If you limit freedom of speech, you don't limit it for dishonest people, they will always find a way to express their position. Would I open your eyes if I say that Europe just copies the same laws used by authoritarian regimes to suppress opposition? I am not exaggerating. They literally copy Russian and Chinese laws. Do you think their laws say "expressing any critics of the regime is forbidden and is punishable with 3-4 years of jail", etc.? No, they say that "justifying Fascism, terrorism is forbidden". They just label everyone as "Fascist", "terrorist", "radical". If you do believe that Europe does this with good intentions for people, you are naive.
To reply to the unjustified sentiments in the rest of your post and the ad hominem attack: I didn't justify anything, I tried to lay out the reasons that are given as the motivation of limitations of freedom of speech in existing EU countries.
These reasons are part of a much larger puzzle, and there are many more considerations to take into account - especially legal an procedural ones, but also democratic division of power issues - before a meaningful discussion of a particular measure of limiting freedom of speech could even begin.
Your reply is the typical example of the frequent use of false dichotomies in public discussions of such matters. It's resting on the obviously false dichotomy that either there is no free speech at all or absolute, totally unrestricted freedom of speech otherwise. Implicitly, it is probably also on the fallacious slippery slope argument that if you limit freedom of speech in some specific, highly controlled way (e.g. under direct judicial oversight with high hurdles), then the restrictions will still invariably worsen over time. That's highly doubtful, too, and at least you'd expect an argument for it.
Returning to the particular case: Yes, I do believe that Europe does this with good intentions. It's absolutely stupid to think anyone in the EU Parliament or in the EU commissions has bad intentions in general. There is no reason to attribute bad intentions to everyone who disagrees with you. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No, I don't think this particular proposition is good in any way whatsoever, pretty much for the in my opinion correct reasons laid out in the mozilla blog.
Do you have any data to backup "rise", because it sure looks like increased media coverage of fringe groups and not any sort of actual rise in these things.
If you want to protect "everyday people", "free speech at all costs" is the way to do it. Otherwise the people in power will decide what speech is allowed and what isn't.
I'm lost for words to describe the stupidity of this
Nothing needs to be done by every means possible. This isn’t worth vaporising cities over, for one example. Or fascism, for another.
Yes you can. They’re called instrumental values and goals.
... such as groups that want to increase surveillance and use fear mongering language, and will make it so you can't legally fight it.
Yeah, that makes total sense. No better way to deal with authoritarians reaching for power than to elect authoritarians into power so they can deal with the wannabe authoritarians in their authoritarian ways.
That is what you said.
I think politicians ought to be scared of their populace, and they are the ones that need to be under constant surveillance. And not vice versa.
I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.
That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals". Even just playing such word games is lending support, and that's even more than condoning something.
I have to admit I'd have difficulty to decide between voting for them (which I'd consider actual support) or accepting laws as described in this post. Thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice, yet.
You instead are talking about how not restricting speech would also allow fascists freedom of speech, which is something else. That makes sense on the top level or attached to other comments, but in this "timeline", the boat has sailed, and "cheering for fascists" in preference to this proposal is what is on the table.
Of course cheering on fascists is unlikely to to lead to more freedom of speech, so in that sense I don't think it's a truly worthwhile course of action.
Keep in mind that during the rise of Hitler, the USA never did the things to Fascists and Nazi's that they did to leftists during the Red Scare & McCarthyism. Having workers rights and socialized health care is a big threat to the ruling class.
The bourgeois elite are very very scared of people like Jeremy Corbyn, but fascists will certainly keep those borgeois safe, rich, and profiting off of war against brown people and homeless people.
>A person who believes that there is a hierarchy of personhood — that some people are more human than others, and some fall below the threshold of being people entirely — and furthermore, that that hierarchy should be institutionalized, is a fascist. A movement composed of such people is a fascist movement. A government managing such a project is a fascist government. (The natural moral logic of such a hierarchy is that violence must be done to the weak by the strong, since they are not human beings at all, but parasites and predators.)
Is this not what the world elite are doing right now? UN Special Rapporteur this week came out with new reports of rampant poverty in USA and UK. What the US & EU allies did to the middle east? Does none of this qualify as fascism?
I think by the time the world wakes up to the fact that they're currently living in at least some form of fascism or close to it, it will be too late.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/un-rapporte...
Edit: Care to comment with reasons why you're downvoting and even flagging? I'm always open to changing my mind.
> Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it.
Having said that, the most pressing problem with authoritasianism and empire building is the EU itself. For the sake of an example, consider this (2011) rant by Guy Verhofstadt, on how member states must give up their sovereignty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDpscmiXwY
Apologies for the meme format; can't seem to find the original while on the go.