"Europe Is Jailing People for Online Speech," by Prof. Yascha Mounk | Hacker News Reader

"Europe Is Jailing People for Online Speech," by Prof. Yascha Mounk

reason.com

9 pointsmdp202113 comments

At least in Finland the jail sentences have been related to extreme widely published antisemitism. Fines have been given for other sorts of hate speech.

If the U.S. wants this to be allowed, it is your business. But it is ours to decide, if we want to allow nazis synmpathy newspapers advocating killing of the jew. Generally, the americans are lost in their arrogance here, as always.

Who decide what is hate speech?

The same people who decide what's defamation, slander, fraud, criminal intent, deceptive practices, etc. etc. etc.

Germany have been bad in this regard since the 19th century and the UK has slippery sloped alot in the last 10 or whatever years to the outright silly state today.

Any other countries I have missed?

1. The entire legal system in Europe, and in Germany in particular, is based on the concept of "dignity". This is the foundational stone for every other concept in the legal context, also including the "free speech". You have to treat other people with dignity.

2. For every freedom, as it understood in Europe, holds true that "your freedom ends where freedom of other people begins". It means that your free speech is (and was) never allowed to attack other people personally (every kind of insults), professionally (e.g. reputational harm), as a member of specific group (any kind of sexism, racism, defamation, etc.)

Police and courts were not always strictly following this, due to various reasons, but it doesn't change the definition. And it is valid for online speech in exactly the same way as for any other kind of speech.

And actually, also in the US it was defined in the same way - it just wasn't written down, since it was a common understanding at that time - and manners, also covering the art of speaking to each other were actually much stricter back then compared to today.

Are you saying that it is assumed "people always having dignity"? Hence one is forbidden to e.g. call "moron" a moron?

If so do you have a reference?

With the transition to digital totalitarianism, jail will be a "block" from the digital realm.

The extrapolation to the entire Europe from a set of extreme outliers (Germany, understandably so, the UK, less so) is grossly disingenuous.

The discourse I would trust here is: "hey it seems like there's a rise of literal Neo-Nazism; is this a free speech issue or something else?" Or maybe something like "misinformation in the social media age". 100% of what I see from the right is, "bawwww free speech", also "I should be able to spread as much misinformation as I want: free speech." Leaving out the fact that this clearly leads to serious social problems is deeply suspect.

<<<Your comment has been flagged as inappropriate by the current people in power, police will be at your door shortly to collect you. No need to be alarmed, for this is best for society.>>>

This is a good example of what I'm talking about

No I agree with you. We _definitely should_ arrest people for silently praying within 50 meters of an abortion clinic. That's progress! :)

A reasonable way to have this discussion is to acknowledge the competing concerns. On the one hand, people just want to get into an abortion clinic. On the other, people want to exercise their right to protest abortion. I'm an activist; I don't think protests should be required to preserve convenience; their power is in the disruption of order. I'm also pro-choice, and I can see a whole lot of problems getting between people and health care that they want and need. How should we balance these two things?

See how I'm doing this without sarcasm and hyperbole, giving respect and thought to both sides and avoiding polemics? That's how you can tell I want a good faith discussion about this. Based on your posts, I can't say the same for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com