Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaaaaaaaaaab | Hacker News Reader

>except for

Ok, so you don't have free speech.

Are you aware of difference between iterated and non iterated games in game theory?

Good. Now play the free speech game in an iterated manner where there exist a chance that a Nazi party comes to power and that likelihood is being lowered by a making holocaust denial illegal. From history you should now that there is no free expression under Nazis and that it takes them losing a world war to oust them (unlike communist regimes which collapse easier).

Does the US model really have free speech if it allows a nazi party getting to power in the future?

That is the paradox of tolerance and is what people learned from the fate of Weimar and what people incorporated into democratic constitutions made after 45.

Thinking that making holocaust denial illegal decreases the odds of a Nazi party coming to power is almost as idiotic as holocaust denial.

Iterated games and future Nazis you say... How can you tell that banning holocaust denial won't result in a reactionary movement in the future that will result in Nazis getting into power again, ąs people might start questioning the holocaust precisely because they're not allowed to question it?

Just like the field of philosophy, the parent comment appears to be making guesses based on feelings

Given that neo-Nazi marches have more attendants in Germany than they do in US, I would question the assertion that it actually does anything to prevent the Nazis from coming to power.

The "paradox of tolerance" is not a paradox at all when one contemplates the difference between speech and action. Tolerating intolerant speech, no matter how extreme, is not a problem. Tolerating intolerant actions is where tolerance breaks down.

Dude, you recently had a right wing mob storm your parliament in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election in favor of a leader with clear fascist tendencies. Come on.

Sure, and most of that mob wasn't neo-Nazi - so I don't see how a ban on Nazi ideology or propaganda would have affected that in any way.

Your whole text in no way or form touches on the fact that limited free speech is, by definition, not free. It's limited.

All your text is doing is explaining why it's limited.

What country does? Even the US has laws against libel, hate speech, etc.

From Wikipedia: "The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&oldid...

Technically. In practice, you will get in trouble for saying certain things.

Not in legal trouble.

Socially, yes, of course there are views that will get you ostracized to some extent. But that's merely the consequence of freedom of association.

If you say, for example, “You live at [xyz accurate address], and I am going to kill you in 48 hours”, you are liable to get into legal trouble.

If the threat is credible and imminent, yes. That's because killing people is obviously illegal, and those you threaten can reasonably take you at your word when you make a credible threat against them and respond accordingly to protect themselves. The speech is merely evidence of intent, not the crime itself. (Morally speaking, of course. Consult a local lawyer for legal advice applicable to your jurisdiction, as the law is not always moral or just.)

I believe libel in the US involves demonstrating actual harm.

The only thing I'm aware of here that I would consider a true infringement of freedom of speech is our obscenity laws. SCOTUS has (sadly) upheld at least some of them.

The US does not have laws against 'hate speech', this is completely incorrect. Libel is a civil matter, and the US is commonly described as having the highest bar to proving libel in the developed world

Yeah, I was mistaken about hate speech laws, sorry about that. My point though was that all countries do restrict speech in _some_ manner (for perfectly valid reasons), and I don't understand this fascination with "free speech" as some sacred concept that must be either whole or completely useless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com