Maturity implies that, while I might retain a right to be a dickhead, everyone (including me) would be better off if I put on my big-people pants.
Beside just repackaging your point, though, there is tremendous power to be had in setting oneself up as a gatekeeper.
The power to regulate where the line is drawn on just how free speech can be is a gateway drug to tyranny.
Thus, the concern is less the speech itself than the tyranny begotten from regulating the speech.
You do raise a good point re: tradeoffs in a healthy society. Mill anticipated this objection and addressed it directly. He didn't advocate for free speech without consequences but developed a harm principle specifically to establish what limits are acceptable. Acceptable limits on thought and speech should be based on demonstrable harm, rather than alleged offence, discomfort, or the current popular opinion or cultural disapproval.
He recognises the need to set some limits, yet also the dangers of who gets to set them. Historically, those with power to restrict speech have restricted truth as falsehood. The bar for restrictions should be very high, not because free speech should be absolute, but because the dangers of overzealous restrictions far outweigh the cost of permitting speech we might personally find objectionable. Even completely false opinions might have their value as they force defenders of truth to better articulate their position or reasoning, and prevents beliefs from becoming prejudiced, or platitudes.
I thought I'd share since it's relevant and there may be some younger readers here that might not have come across his work. I really recommend reading it, even if it's an LLM summary as an introduction (as seems to be the trend nowadays)
Edited to fix a few typos (typing from mobile)
1. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html#book-reader
Such heavy-handed, draconian laws give ammo to Holocaust deniers.
I would rather them having imaginary ammo by being punished for it.
David Irving had a great opportunity to make his case .. he failed several times over:
The court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".
There was a time the lab leak covid theory was hate speech, people were calling people racists for mentioning it. Sometimes simply stating statistics can get construed as hate speech.
I'm sure there's other good examples, but at the end of the day it just creates a bar for those trying to silence a topic to reach.
Holocaust denial is not hate speech. People should be allowed to question a historic event. People should be allowed to think.
dismissals from the administrative classes only inflame it. we are anticipating similar speech laws in canada to prevent resistance to a commitment by the new PM to double the national population within 14 years (5% annual immigration compounding).
the message from the EU and the networks behind these policies elsewhere reduces to, "resistance is hate, citizen" and they're trying to move fast enough to get ahead of the growing sentiment for a just war of defence they know they are starting with their erasure of national cultures.
i wouldnt underestimate the impact of these laws and the efforts behind them or the reaction that has been building.
Ireland also choose to join the EU, how are they being "colonized".
I wonder if the Irish would have still decided to join the EU, if they had known the EU would then write their speech laws.
It's debatable to what extent the realization of the EU contributed to the Good Friday Agreement, and the Celtic Tiger, but in the minds of most Irish, the correlation is meaningful.
So I will hazard a guess that few Irish regret joining the EU.
If anyone reading this is actually Irish, perhaps they could address this?
But in reality yea, the EU is essentially at the articles of confederation stage of the US. The EU has been flexing its muscles with what laws they can enforce on their members, and I'd expect the eventual EU army to be the turning point where people start to realize the EU election is likely more important, or at least equally important, as their local elections.
(Another pair is Sweden-Germany: 0.959)
Update: by good or bad I took you to having meant whether they are reliable or not. Oops!
If a soap-box preacher preaches out loud "adulterers should be stoned to death" or a Nazi holds out a banner saying "death to blacks and jews", is that protected? Even in trump's america, that is protected and we value that dearly. How does hate speech work in Europe, do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely?
The distinction in the US as I understand it is that those speakers did not make specific or elaborate plans to incite violence, they mere shared or tried to spread their unpopular beliefs, and that is protected and their right. But if the preacher said "let us stone those prostitutes to death" or the Nazi said "Let us kill the blacks and jews in our city" that is a threat of violence, a very serious felony.
I am just trying to understand the distinction here, because if those people are not free to simply share their views without inciting or threatening specific acts of violence, then I would deem Europe a dangerous place to visit for anyone that aspires towards original and critical thinking.
The general idea behind EU's freedom of speech is that its totally acceptable for expressing controversial ideas or questioning norms, like a religious leader could do. Calling for harm or hate (like some religious leader do) is not acceptable.
> do they really forbid people from speaking their minds entirely?
"Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"
> "Yes" could be an answer here, but we could legitimately wonder if a right mind would think "we should kill all the ones I don't like"
You're right, but the point is not whether such persons are in their right mind, evil, horrible,etc... society can view them as such just fine. The point is, should the state be imprisoning such people simply for stating their views. For example in the US, I'm sure you've seen videos of people being explicitly racist in public, they don't get arrested but they do lose their jobs and livelihoods.
the concept of hate-speech gives the state the right to police speech that is merely unpopular, with no immediate harm to anyone. What if Europe slides to the far-right, and Nazis become a protected group and criticizing them is now considered hate-speech? That has dire implications. You can see this happening in the US right now, but at least we can still be critical of MAGA, the concept of making that hate-speech does not exist, so we still have a fighting chance, they can't pass laws that will allow them to spread false information without others criticizing it by redefining legal definitions of such terms (which they can do).
Do you think the EU is so bandwidth-limited it cannot do other things while discussing hate speech laws with Ireland?
While I support the idea the issue is that hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority", despite the minority being even more vulgar and racist than the natives.
Indeed, history is full of examples of speech laws being used by those in power to silence those not in power, from war protestors (WW1 to Vietnam) to civil rights protestors. The U.S. courts didn't start out with the current expansive interpretation of free speech. Initially they tried various ways of stopping only the "bad speech" while permitting the "good speech. Over decades of trial and error, the U.S. courts saw how it always ended in abuse of the powerless by the powerful and eventually realized the only long-term solution is expansive free speech rights for all.
Personally, I think the U.S. legal system eventually managed to get free speech rights into a very good balance. While I find the first amendment protected speech of some of my fellow Americans to be reprehensible and disgusting, I'll defend their right to speak because the alternative of granting the government the power to punish words instead of actions is far scarier.
Is it not my right to not like something? Or even to hate it? If it is not, then we're policing thought crime through the only visible evidence - what is said. Whatever this is a cure for, it's worse than the disease. The cynic in me suspects it not intended as a cure though. It's intended to control.
Are the implying Ireland needs to boost up those conviction numbers? With only 5 convicted, someone is clearly not doing their job.
I am getting a faint whiff of a conviction quota. Comrades Stalin and Yezhov would be proud
Let us take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_Order_No._00447
> By the autumn of 1937, the pressure to achieve arrests was so great that the NKVD interrogators began picking out names from the telephone directory or preselecting married men with children who, as every agent knew, were the quickest to confess
Can't they just pick out some random names from Facebook and convict them, I am sure they are guilty of something /s
Some people favour freedom of speech above all else, and reject the notion it should be curbed for fuzzy concepts such as societal benefit.
Some people think freedom of speech should work for the society. We limit it anyway - threats of violence are always out. So might as well push this boundary a bit.
I found it useless to debate the merits of these points because, as I say, it seems to be dogmatic. You believe either one or the other.
Personally I'm in the second camp. And frankly more so since Trump and his "free speech absolutists" won. Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over, support for Israel is boundless but speak up for Palestine and ICE detains you... If "absolute free speech" is curbed by whatever the government likes, then what's the point?
lokar•4h ago
snapplebobapple•4h ago
lokar•4h ago
defrost•4h ago
Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 : https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/
It appears, by my very brief skimming, to cover issues raised in the article here but is seen as light on the Hate Speech aspects ...
So .. Nuremberg style rallies (speech alone) are currently fine in Ireland but criminal in the EU?With mosque burning, synagogue grafitti, shop front smashing in the {X} neighbourhood, etc. criminal acts in both IE and the (non IE) EU.
lokar•3h ago
“… public incitement to violence of hatred …”
How does that work as English?
fakedang•3h ago
Capitalized the primary nouns in each phrase. Basically inciting people into hatred of a particular group, with violent connotations such as burning places of worship, etc.
Noumenon72•3h ago
It matters, too, because my suspicion is they want to punish hatred as though it were violence.
LodeOfCode•3h ago
Animats•3h ago