Why did non-American democracies seem to think that hate speech laws were ever a good idea...

>some meaningless ranking is going to fix the fact that few nations outside the USA have free speech

>trying to quantify something as subjective as freedom and expecting to be taken seriously

Social sciences might have been a mistake.

>implying you don't also censor some form of speech
If you can't walk up to a child in front of it's parents and scream that you're going to rape and kill the child then slaughter it's pets and burn down the house you don't have free speech then.

>Direct threats to someone's safety are even on the same plane of reality as political censorship.

Your countries deserve to be taken over by Muslims.

The Cato Institute is right-wing American organisation. Also you can buy guns and butter knives in the UK, where on Earth did you get the idea you can't?

This is the sort of butthurt and delusion I am talking about.

Brits have gotten thoroughly Eurofied when Marxism spread there. Fuck, they even have a Labour Party

>This is the sort of butthurt and delusion I am talking about.
You're honestly going to say that the UK has the same free speech as the USA?

Attached: anime-tackle-hug-gif-7.gif (500x256, 1.8M)

Ahh yes, maybe we should all just go by which nation likes to screech "freedom" as a national meme. The USSR used to be fond of that as well.

>You can buy a gun in the UK goyim, as long as its exactly this type of useless gun and you obey all our numerous and prohibiting regulations

Absolutely pathetic.

>You're honestly going to say that the UK has the same free speech as the USA?
I'm not a fan of hate speech laws but there's no difference of massive significance.

>the USA has no laws against purchasing weapons.
>I can buy as many SAM batteries as I like.

Because European democracies have tons of political parties, allowing radicals to have a voice in government.

America allows free speech because no matter how radical your speech is, it ultimately doesn't matter when there are only two parties with functionally identical platforms in all ways aside from a few insignificant social issues.

>Go to the United States
>Say Jews run the government, Nazis were okay, Communists are nice guys, the moon landing was fake, fuck niggers, fuck spics, fuck muslims, fuck christians, fuck black people, white people, the holocaust never happened, immigration isn't a human right, etc

>Be the United Kingdom
>Get sent to a year in prison because you videoed your dog doing the Nazi salute

No difference at all, right?

I'm just saying, freedom is not something that can be quantified and added across categories with any kind of objectively meaningful conclusion.

We have much, much less laws regulating firearm ownership and honestly many of those we have are illegal.

>there's no difference of massive significance
Hate speech laws are a pretty big jump from no hate speech laws.

This post is fantasy, though. Your greentext is so far gone from reality it's not even possible to respond sensibly.

Why not?

That's still censorship, you've stopped someone from speaking their opinion. What about screaming allah akbar on a public corner outside the 9-11 site or at public graveyards and calling veterans sacks of dead shit? If you censor that and criminalize it you don't have free speech. What about leaking military plans? The Government literally makes it illegal to tell your wife or your best friend things you know because the government said so or even for media companies to not be able to run said things.

Unless you then fall for the same trap Europeans do with that's not real free speech that's aggressive talking or could hurt someone (Which is still free speech) then you just have mostly free speech.

Why did non-American democracies seem to think that hate speech laws were ever a good idea?
Because they are.

Hate speech is a direct assault on free speech. Hate speech is attacking the foundations upon which free speech is built off of, the erosion of the impartial discussion that must take place in order for a democratic society to function. When men are trained to hate each other, civil discussion breaks down and is replaced with arguing, and eventually fighting. Men who hate each other vote for politicians who are on "their" side, and are going to stick it to the other side. This arrangement is unsustainable, and will eventually result in a strongman forcing society together and dispensing entirely with the hypocritical pretense of speech still being free in their society.

As aggravating as it usually is, it's better to deal with the inconveniences of too much political correctness than the inconveniences of not enough

Attached: 1514830709247.jpg (1400x933, 344K)

newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-who-taught-dog-nazi-salute-faces-jail-hate-crime-853470

thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d

>More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums, a rise of nearly 50 per cent in two years, according to figures obtained by The Times.

The United Kingdom is a police state which should violently overthrow its government.

Because freedom is a subjective term. The only one that might be anything near quantifiable is economic freedom.

You are wrong, and the peoples of Europe should rebel against their illegitimate governments.

All European countries are at least 85% white. Even in Sweden, whites are nearly 90% of the population. On the other hand, only 56% of Americans are white and that number is going to fall below 50% in a couple of years.

>Because mutts now have this retarded idea that free speech means they should be able to say anything without consequence and people don't get to exercise their own free speech in disagreement or else that's censorship.
Every time I hear about censorship, it's some holocaust denier or creationist angry that they can't force the school system to teach children their "alternate viewpoints" or ni66er_5tomper_1488 being banned from youtube after getting caught telling his followers to spam death threats, personal information and downvotes of videos of people he doesn't like.

So in other words your feelings are all important and you want to pretend you are free.

>it's better to deal with the inconveniences of too much political correctness than the inconveniences of not enough
Except political correctness is often a tool of the authoritarian to eliminate all viewpoints outside a narrow window as "politically incorrect".

Attached: 1518583140901.jpg (1169x1700, 710K)

If Donald Trump ran for office in the UK, Germany, or Sweden he would have been arrested for hate crimes.

I'm right, and the business of nation-building is messy and more often results in worse situation than before

Attached: a28073371af669fa22ae7d30433c862e.gif (400x220, 2.9M)

I love the way you claimed that you can be jailed in the UK for saying the Moon landing was fake and then produce a news article about someone that made a Youtube video saying "gas the Jews".

Are you seriously such a clown that you honestly believe you can attach an objective numerical ranking to the freedom you feel buying international goods and use that same criteria to objectively assign a number to the feeling of free you have when you join the political party you want?

Are you seriously that autistic?

>Tries to smoke a harmless plant
>Gets put in jail for more time than a rapist
Wow, so much freedom.

I love the way you completely misconstrued my post to benefit your position. I was pointing out that in the United States you can say whatever the hell you like no matter how offensive it is to others, whereas in the United Kingdom they arrest you for so much as making a joke the State doesn't approve of.

I agree completely with your statement. That's what makes it a balancing act between two extremes. Like it or not when society legitimizes hatred, it starts to unravel, so we have to surrender some freedoms in the interest of security. Freedom and security are two sides of the same coin, you need both, or you'll lose both.

>I love the way you claimed that you can be jailed in the UK for saying the Moon landing was fake

He very obviously didn't say that, you must be mentally disabled.

What year do you live in? A large portion of the US population can smoke weed legally and that's not the case in Europe to nearly the same degree.

You still aren't giving me a single reason why it can't be done in principle. You are just getting distressed and throwing insults.

You seriously think calling on people to "gas Jews" is just making a joke the state doesn't approve of or that the US doesn't have laws against inciting crime?

It's a subjective emotion, you can't quantify emotions. How free someone feels is not something you can put a number on with any certain level of objectivity that will translate across individuals and context. It's way too subjective.

It was a joke video about a dog heiling. How dense are you?

In a free speech state, if I were to buy a billboard on some prominent place and write "Billy Rodrigues is a cocksucking faggot" on it, how should mr. Rodrigues respond?

Free speech doesn't legitimize hatred though, if anything hate speech legitimizes hatred moreso than free speech ever could. America allows people the freedom of speech and yet hateful movements remain a tiny fringe minority in our nation, the only thing that banning those movements or their speech would do is grant them legitimacy and give them attention as people wonder why we fear them so much if they're wrong. It is precisely because we know that most people want mutual compassion and cooperation that we can allow free speech to exist and allow the people who preach hate to make themselves out as fools to the public.

Attached: O3j9R0X.png (1280x852, 1.52M)

Democracy is built on the idea that the best ideas are the ones that can win in a fair and open contest of ideas.

By censoring racist or offensive views, you are signalling that those ideas would win against mainstream ideas in a fair and open marketplace of ideas.

Unlike many Northwestern European countries, the US doesn’t have laws that guarantee the right of journalists to protect their sources and other confidential work-related information. The US also lacks sufficient protection of whistleblowers and it has banned entry for journalists who have covered American foreign policy in an unfavorable light. This is why Nordic countries are usually ranked far above the US in cross-national comparisons of press freedom, even though they have banned hate speech.

Yes I do. Asking your dog if he wants to gas Jews then having him do a Nazi salute is very clearly a joke.

And I wouldn't particularly care if it wasn't, until he starts actually performing violent acts [or directly advocating the same] its none of the government's damn business what he says.

The divide between word and action is the cornerstone of Free Speech. You're in your full right to say "Niggers should be slaves" or "Muslims should be driven out back to their countries" or [to make it bipartisan] "All white men should be killed", and until you actually start killing you have not committed a crime and should not be punished.

>, the US doesn’t have laws that guarantee the right of journalists to protect their sources and other confidential work-related information

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there Supreme Court rulings that do this?

You could make joke videos with dogs giving Nazi salutes every day of the week without a problem, that's not all that guy did at all. You're the one deliberately being dense.

Your personal feelings and how loudly you can shout "freedom" are irrelevant.

What did he do?

I wouldn't care if he was an actual Nazi, being a Nazi isn't illegal.

Did you even watch the video?

Do they allow you to watch the video in your shithole marmite republic?

>the idea that the best ideas are the ones that can win in a fair and open contest of ideas.

Yes but that's retarded and wrong, unless you define 'the best ideas' as 'the most immediately convincing and satisfying regardless of veracity'.

Let me try and walk you through this.

Give me an objective numerical value on the importance of being able to join your own political party, and being able to buy international goods at your local store.

user, incitement laws would most definitely apply to someone telling people to murder whites.

We are also now talking about fine gradations, which was my point, rather than your fantasy greentext.

Being a Nazi isn't illegal in the UK either.

Called for Jews to be gassed.

Yes.

If you can't convince people that your idea is right, your idea doesn't deserve to win.

If you have to ask the state to intervene to shut down other competing ideas, your idea is bad, and deserves to die.

If the government resorts to censoring an ideological position, that's a strong indicator that said position is important, and powerful, and that people need to pay attention to it.

>You seriously think calling on people to "gas Jews" is just making a joke the state doesn't approve
yes
>US doesn't have laws against inciting crime?
they do, but they're extremely narrow. For example, you would never get fucked for making a fucking joke video on the internet.

>train a dog to hail every time you say "gas the Jews"
>this isn't perfectly acceptable banta

He said no such thing. In fact, he just asked the dog if the dog thought it would be acceptable to gas the jews. Are you dense?

The United States doesn't HAVE incitement laws.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement#United_States

The only form of 'incitement' that is illegal is as I said, directly advocating for a specific violent crime.

I can say "The Jews should be gassed" as many times as I want, as long as I don't say "Sam, Fred, go gas Mr Goldstein"

Let e walk you through this.

If someone said to you "North Korea is just as free as the USA" would you respond by saying, "yes, that is totally subjective and not something anyone could quantify being able to freely vote in an election is just an emotional issue".

>America allows people the freedom of speech and yet hateful movements remain a tiny fringe minority in our nation, the only thing that banning those movements or their speech would do is grant them legitimacy
It's always a tiny fringe of lunatics making life fucking hell for the vast majority of normies. That's been human nature since our hunter-gatherer days. The problem is that when we allow hateful ideologies to fester and congregate, it accumulates political capital and begins infecting the rest of society, and can eventually institutionalize and lead to social unraveling as people rebel against their corrupted institutions. The Civil War can even be seen as a this happening, when a small minority of slave holders literally hijacked their state governments and attempted to tear apart the United States.

Attached: 1519447112312.jpg (1680x945, 83K)

user depending on whether you're asking a tankie or someone without severe learning disabilities you'd get much different answers to that question

The problem comes when you get to two countries who have nearly all the same rights except for a few. Even still there might be people who consider North Korea more conducive to their freedom than the US.

So are you agreeing that you personally agree North Korea is just as free as the USA and there is no possibly way we could ever see to make comparisons? I'm not interested in what answer we might get if we asked a tankie unless you are saying you are one and that is your personal opinion.

If politically destabilizing and subversive views weren't protected by the First Amendment, the Civil Rights Movement never would have happened, because Hoover would have been allowed to outright arrest the ACLU and NAACP leadership.

Societies can not progress without unpopular, "dangerous" opinions, and the government is generally up to no good, so it makes no sense to give the government discretion over what opinions are beneficial to society when the entire point of democracy is to allow private to challenge the government's authority.

For example, if you asked some people, "who is the nicer guy" between a rapist and a charity worker, the answer would be obvious.

But what if you asked that question of two guys who were not very different from eachother? It becomes very subjective.

>Democracy is built on the idea that the best ideas are the ones that can win in a fair and open contest of ideas.
And those ideas have to be delivered in an impartial manner, with the greater interest of the commonwealth at heart.

> you are signalling that those ideas would win against mainstream ideas in a fair and open marketplace of ideas.
Nonsense, you're merely acknowledging Goebbel's point that people will believe a big lie if it's told often enough

Attached: Mah Nitta.jpg (650x488, 109K)

The problem is that politically speaking there's no such thing as hateful ideologies. Every political theory views its adherents as right, good, and sane and those within its Overton Window as tolerable and those beyond it as radical.

As I said before, if Donald Trump [who won a national election in the US by a wide margin electorally] had run for office in most European countries or Canada he would have been arrested for hate speech.

As far as I'm concerned, Trump is a moderate when compared to my own views, so any society that would censor him is hopelessly radical and hateful from where I stand on the political compass. Any attempt to shut down 'hate speech' is, from the perspective of the American Right, attempts to shut down their own politics in defense of Far Left politics.

>Hoover would have been allowed to outright arrest the ACLU and NAACP leadership.
Because Hoover himself was possessed by hateful ideas, because America in those days had a culture of casually and openly treating blacks as inferiors. It wasn't always like that, Race didn't become an issue until wealthy people started pushing it after the Bacon Rebellion in order to keep working people divided and at each other's throats

>As aggravating as it usually is, it's better to deal with the inconveniences of too much political correctness than the inconveniences of not enough
Considering that there are no mainstream far right parties that aren't either hilariously small or on the decline, there isn't any danger from hate speech. Dealing with the political correctness is dumb if we don't have to deal with it.
>As I said before, if Donald Trump [who won a national election in the US by a wide margin electorally] had run for office in most European countries or Canada he would have been arrested for hate speech.
He hasn't put any real hateful ideologies into practice so I don't see the point of the hate speech laws.

second part meant for

>England
>Marxism
>Labour Party

Please don't use words that you don't actually know the meaning of. It makes you seem like an uncultured moron.

>Because Hoover himself was possessed by hateful ideas
Except with hate speech laws it wouldn't have been Hoover getting censored, it would have been the ACLU and NAACP. And they would've been arrested for hate speech, regardless of what they were actually preaching. What is and isn't hateful is determined by the government, not the objective truth of morality. And the government is full of slimy scumbags, exactly the kind of people you don't want in charge of our speech.

Attached: 1521184876016.png (495x699, 549K)

It doesn't matter what 'hateful ideas' or 'culture' they had, the point is that if you don't allow an open discussion on ideas YOU find abhorrent, and insist on censoring 'radical' views, eventually a 'radical' view is going to take power violently [as opposed to politically] and use your precedent of not respecting free speech to censor YOU.

I'd much rather have free speech, but let me be honest if my choices politically were 'Censor or be censored' you can be damn sure I'd sacrifice my principle and start illegalizing progressivism/leftism.

Which is the whole point. People are going to disagree and fight over who gets to be in charge no matter what, the only questino is whether you want the fight to take place over internet forums and college debates or in the streets with crowbars.

>Labour Party
That's a powerless laughing stock.

>The problem is that politically speaking there's no such thing as hateful ideologies
Civil society isn't built on moral relativism. The cops will throw your ass in jail for murder no matter how hard you attempt to rationalize it because the people have agreed that its in the interest of the commonwealth that murders should not be tolerated. No, it's not an arbitrary popularity contest, it's a public trust that everyone is compelled to be loyal towards. If the terms of the public trust are intolerable, there's nothing stopping you from leaving.

Literally encouraging people to bring harm to the commonwealth should be as tolerated as a father watching an older man manipulate his daughter and turn her against him. At a certain point, you have to make a stand, or you'll lose the thing that actually matters.

Attached: Ben Franklin.jpg (533x600, 146K)

>Dealing with the political correctness is dumb if we don't have to deal with it.
I feel you bro, I honestly do.

Unfortunately, liberty requires eternal vigilance

pls be bait

Attached: here.gif (500x295, 997K)

>harmless
faggot.

>Literally encouraging people to bring harm to the commonwealth should be as tolerated as a father watching an older man manipulate his daughter and turn her against him.
Your analogy breaks down when you consider that IRL its more like a four year old trying to use his command of the english language to accomplish the same thing. Hate groups, even in the US, have very little political power, enforcing draconian hate speech laws would accomplish little besides cracking down on randos who make a dumb video where their dog does the hitler salute.
Dealing with political correctness is dumb if isn't accomplishing anything, yes.

>Except with hate speech laws it wouldn't have been Hoover getting censored, it would have been the ACLU and NAACP.
Again, all because he was born and grew up in a culture of hatred. And yes, it does make society worse: those are exactly the kind of scumbags you don't want holding high office. The key is having a culture which doesn't tolerate their presence, and the key to that is making sure that we are a society where every one of every ethnicity has a fair say

Attached: Icaro-Icarus.jpg (890x800, 125K)

Okay then lets play by the ballpark of moral objectivity and make my political viewpoints, in their most severe form, the ironclad law of the commonwealth.

>Homosexuality now carries the death penalty, as does adultery and casual sex.
>Transexuality is to be treated as a mental illness.
>Anyone advocating communism, socialism, or Islamic ideologies of any kind [including Islam itself] will face five to ten years in prison.
>Everyone to the Left of Donald Trump is no longer allowed to hold public office of any kind above the county level.
>Federal income tax is abolished
>Federal reserve is abolished
>Banking is now heavily regulated, fractional reserve specifically is illegal.
>All illegal immigrants are to be deported as once.

I could really go on, but I think you get the point. I imagine that my political views are as intolerable to many of you as yours are revolting to me, so my question to you is would you rather have free speech, conversation, and compromise [that is, Civil Society], or would you rather we just Game of Thrones this shit.

Because I'm fine with either really. With as polarized as politics are right now, the last thing we need is the sides trying to outlaw each other.

Attached: 1505598367079.jpg (556x720, 129K)

>Hate groups, even in the US, have very little political power, enforcing draconian hate speech laws would accomplish little besides cracking down on randos who make a dumb video where their dog does the hitler salute.
For most of our history that was certainly the case, but things have changed now that the internet allows them to congregate, pool their resources, and wreck havoc on the civil discourse, and working together they have the potential to do a ton of damange. A huge volume of lies is pouring into social media, inspiring whites and blacks to fucking hate each other for reasons that are completely irrational. This is not a positive development for our country7

Even if it gave people cancer, the government should fuck off. It’s not their job to treat us like children.

>but now things have changed
literal nerd virgins on /pol/, the worst they've done is shout "pepe" at hillary clinton rallies and troll shia. They have no potential, and in fact their power is on the wane. They're big push was getting an orange monkey into a government that is increasingly hostile to him. They're not enough to justify draconian hate speech laws.

Nonsense, you're just being legalistic. Nobody's suggesting that we should go back to enforcing laws that encourage people to hate each other, or laws that would strip away at the economic underpinnings of our vast, complex society. In order to determine the best possible mixture of ideas, people need to feel safe expressing them. Hate speech stifles that process because now people are arranging themselves into "tribes" which self-reinforce and view "others" with suspicion rather than as fellow countrymen.

Attached: 1485642480612.jpg (1684x900, 739K)

>and the key to that is making sure that we are a society where there is only one ethnicity and we interact fairly with other societies
ftfy

I honestly hope you're right on that one.

Donald Trump and /pol/ in general has the same political viewpoints as their grandfathers did. The only 'havoc' they're wreaking is trying to fix what fifty years of social engineering broke.