No, in Europe we have the concept of "freedom of speech has limits". Basically, you are free to speak, but you are not free to make hate speech.
Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".
Speaking against the aristocrats, back in the day, would also be regarded as "hate speech". Or speaking against class privilege, now.
And of course, anybody talking against mass immigration (which, as a social phenomenon has a lot of downsides too), will easily be classified as "hate speaker" too.
That's utterly naive, don't you think? They don't have to specifically classify those as hate speech. They just have to make the law vague enough -- and then the "offended parties", activists and other over-sensitive folks jump to take the opportunity.
"""In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."""
Can it be any more vague?
Here's an example of such laws in action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm
Would you be OK if Atheists couldn't talk against Christianism in the same way?
>Up until then I'll say you are spouting utter rubbish.
You can say anything you want -- however rude and ad hominen. I'm for free speech after all.
"""(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."""
"Here's an example" - good: I don't believe you should be able to make and distribute a film equating an established world religion with nazism.
Then you are a little fascist youself: you want to impose into people what they can and cannot say.
Not to mention, nazism is a historical phenomenon. Same as the slaughters of millions in the name of various Gods. So why shouldn't anyone equate an "established world religion with nazism"? If anything, some religious wars killed more people than nazism did -- or at least affected and enslaved larger areas for far far more years -- millenia even.
But everywhere has some practical limits on free speech. It's a question of where the line is drawn. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, threatening the President, you get the picture.
Of course we're not all going to agree on where the line should be drawn, and some would like there to be no line at all. You can't please everyone.
In France and Germany, it's illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, but it's not in the UK or Spain, for example.
> Because somebody else gets to decide what's "hate speech".
We decide what is hate speech, through our elected representatives. It's far from perfect, but it's the better than all the alternatives.
Why would people do what you describe? Because they are pure evil? What if they occassionally do have a point?
You do not comprehend the reality you are discussing. Screaming 'GOD HATES FAGS' at someone's funeral is not political protest. It is disgusting psychological abuse.
For one, what if that specific group makes life worse for the others, so it's rightly villified? Then it would be important that their complaint is known.
Second, even if what they say in their "signs" is wrong, I better publicly KNOW that there are people that think this way, and take precautions, that have them do it in secret.
Third, it never stops there. It opens an Overton Window that makes speaking freely all the more difficult.
Sorry what? That's like saying we should listen to the KKK because after all they do make life worse for others!
It will be interesting to compare east and west Germans on their attitudes towards free speech since the last had to "enjoy" the rule of communist party.
(disclaimer - my relatives were prosecuted in the 40s-50s from the newly empowered communist party in Bulgaria)
When a nation lives trough that you become to respect the almost absolute freedom US enjoys.
Well it's not really freedom of speech then, is it? I understand physical dangers like yelling fire in a theater, but this is limiting what can actually be expressed despite the context. "Hateful language" is defined by the victim's feelings, and someone expressing their speech has no control over that. Perhaps someone innocuously posts a picture of Muhammed unknowing that it just offended millions of Muslims who want him punished for his "hateful language". So you can't draw the line when people's feelings are involved.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. EDIT: -Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
Just FYI: Nope, not Voltaire.
Not at all; the context - twitter, essentially a public broadcaster - is highly relevant. Most of us would defend the right of an individual to express themselves however they wish in private - or even in most public, but 'local' situations - even in terms of the abhorrent language/concepts expressed in this case. However, when your platform is a national - even global - one, the context is radically different, and incitement to commit racist crime becomes possible.
As you admit, there is no such thing as 100% free speech, even in the USA, so it will always be a case of finding the line somewhere. In Europe, we just happen to have the line slightly closer to civility, something of which I am very glad.