Germany declares the end of the era of free speech



Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,856
Twitter
Deiscirt
There is no sensible person in the world who does not accept that there are limits to free speech. You cannot shout out "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, nor tell a blind person that it is OK to cross even though the light is red.

The issue is one of the calibration of those controls, a messy business, best left to people capable of coping with complexity and ambiguity , rather than the simpletons who live in a black and white world :LOL:
This is a straw man. No one is claiming the right to tell the blind person to walk out into traffic. It's really quite simple:

1. We have had sensible restrictions on free speech for generations
2. There is (what appears to be) a concerted push to further increase restrictions under the guise of moral panic over "Hate Speech" which we're being told is rampant.*
3. A lot of people are very wary of attempts to allow the government to further involve itself in determining what people say

*Here are two graphs showing racial prejudice both in the world and in Europe specifically. "The West" is the least racist part of the planet. Ireland and Germany are among the least racist places in the West. Yet further restrictions are being pushed.




3FG5DK4CBIZN7L5OBU4DPR7L5Y.jpgEJfdQiOWwAAPUAY.png
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,057
For example, here is a passage from the preface to the 1888 edition of The Communist Manifesto:



This suggests a pretty clear distinction between socialism and communism, at least in the authors' opinions.
I'm not familiar with Marx ever using the terms interchangeably. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, that would be useful to know.
Maybe not Marx, but Engels certainly did, he said in a chapter headed True Socialism, of The German ideology by Marx and Engels,
Thus “true socialism” is nothing but the transfiguration of proletarian communism,
True Socialism by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,057
Well done, I admit I have underestimated you. I should have kept in mind what I previously know of those other contributors.


I did take issue with the implications of the above. While you may be correct in terms of the Marxist theory, do you not think there may be other structures for it?

One example would be capitalism producing a privileged class of people who would reject the sources of their own wealth and seek a socialist order.

And there are other possibilities.
No, I honestly don't think you could impose socialism on whatever percentage of the population that didn't want it, without an oppressive communist state body.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,439
This is a straw man. No one is claiming the right to tell the blind person to walk out into traffic. It's really quite simple:

1. We have had sensible restrictions on free speech for generations
2. There is (what appears to be) a concerted push to further increase restrictions under the guise of moral panic over "Hate Speech" which we're being told is rampant.*
3. A lot of people are very wary of attempts to allow the government to further involve itself in determining what people say

*Here are two graphs showing racial prejudice both in the world and in Europe specifically. "The West" is the least racist part of the planet. Ireland and Germany are among the least racist places in the West. Yet further restrictions are being pushed.
We already have laws restricting incitement to hatred. This issue is only in the news because it turns out the existing laws are worded in a way that makes them very difficult to enforce.

For you to regard this as a threat to liberty suggests you think there is something important that we would lose if it was more difficult for people to openly advocate for racist viewpoints.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,856
Twitter
Deiscirt
We already have laws restricting incitement to hatred. This issue is only in the news because it turns out the existing laws are worded in a way that makes them very difficult to enforce.

For you to regard this as a threat to liberty suggests you think there is something important that we would lose if it was more difficult for people to openly advocate for racist viewpoints.
Translation: Installment number 102,481 of "You're a racist." This is so juvenile and tiresome. You don't understand the value of free speech, so in fairness you shouldn't be expected to appreciate it. There is ZERO evidence that the law "difficult to enforce" beyond low conviction numbers. Now, people like you - who are convinced in the absence of any evidence - that there is an epidemic of racism which is causing a moral emergency that needs to be addressed will infer from this that the law needs to be changed. People like me will look at the low conviction rates and say instead - This is in keeping with the data we're seeing. There's simply not a lot of racist incitement happening.

The whole push comes from a conviction (no pun etc.) that racism and incitement to racial hatred is a huge problem that needs to be tackled. It's a small problem as borne our by the available data and one that doesn't merit granting the government further control over speech to tackle.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,856
Twitter
Deiscirt
NGOs: There's no one being convicted for race crime and all I can see around me is racisms as far as the eye can see!
Charlie Flanagan: Hold my beer.


You read that right. The DOJ is considering reversing the burden of proof. For the slow learners this amounts to "You're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent." Everything is fine.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,439
Translation: Installment number 102,481 of "You're a racist." This is so juvenile and tiresome. You don't understand the value of free speech, so in fairness you shouldn't be expected to appreciate it. There is ZERO evidence that the law "difficult to enforce" beyond low conviction numbers. Now, people like you - who are convinced in the absence of any evidence - that there is an epidemic of racism which is causing a moral emergency that needs to be addressed will infer from this that the law needs to be changed. People like me will look at the low conviction rates and say instead - This is in keeping with the data we're seeing. There's simply not a lot of racist incitement happening.

The whole push comes from a conviction (no pun etc.) that racism and incitement to racial hatred is a huge problem that needs to be tackled. It's a small problem as borne our by the available data and one that doesn't merit granting the government further control over speech to tackle.
The government released a publicly available document as part of this consultation process which spells out many of the reasons why the laws are difficult to enforce. Of course that doesn't stop you from making the above claims because you're so arrogant that you think you can make false claims and nobody will bother to contradict you, and you're really invested in protecting racist speech because of the racist views you endorse.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,856
Twitter
Deiscirt
The government released a publicly available document as part of this consultation process which spells out many of the reasons why the laws are difficult to enforce. Of course that doesn't stop you from making the above claims because you're so arrogant that you think you can make false claims and nobody will bother to contradict you, and you're really invested in protecting racist speech because of the racist views you endorse.
Installment number 102,482.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,057
The government released a publicly available document as part of this consultation process which spells out many of the reasons why the laws are difficult to enforce. Of course that doesn't stop you from making the above claims because you're so arrogant that you think you can make false claims and nobody will bother to contradict you, and you're really invested in protecting racist speech because of the racist views you endorse.
Is there anyone here sincerely defending free speech or are we all just racists? and actual free speech liberals don't exist?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,439
Installment number 102,482.
I honestly wonder who you think you're fooling at this point. Your fellow racists already agree with you, and none of the rest of us are going to be fooled for one minute by a poster whose entire tenure here has been characterized by an obsession with foreigners.

To be honest, the fact that you're so worked up about the proposed changes is just more evidence as to why they're needed.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,057
That quote seems to suggest that many people believe there to be a distinction between the two.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you, the way I see it communists like you use the term socialist as a soft sell when you need to, socialists are just idiots who don't realise they will stabbed in the back by communists.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,439
Is there anyone here sincerely defending free speech or are we all just racists? and actual free speech liberals don't exist?
The biggest threat to freedom of expression is our draconian defamation law.

We live in a country where it's easier to sue someone who accuses someone else of racism than it is to charge someone with inciting racial hatred.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,856
Twitter
Deiscirt
To be honest, the fact that you're so worked up about the proposed changes is just more evidence as to why they're needed.
102,483. This is all you have. All day, every day.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,439
I'm not going to argue semantics with you, the way I see it communists like you use the term socialist as a soft sell when you need to, socialists are just idiots who don't realise they will stabbed in the back by communists.
I don't recall ever saying I'm a communist.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top