Germany bans things like Holocaust denial and certain things about far right political parties. It’s not the American way but I’m quite ok with Germany doing this.
As I understand it, writing/distributing child porn fiction in the US is against the law. Conceptually, that's the same thing; expressing ideas that cause no _direct_ harm to anyone.
> Germany has literally criminalised thinking the wrong things, and denies people to associate freely based on the things that they happen to think.
Yeah, like "all jews should be killed". Good thing.
> It doesn't stop those people thinking those things and it doesn't stop people from associating with each other.
It prevents such things from being normalized and makes it harder for them to be put in action.
Yeah, I know what you learned in school that this is worse than actual mass murder, and that everyone should be allowed to advocate for mass murder so that they can be disputed in the "marketplace of ideas".
In reality, what you get is echo chambers that lead people to believe that they're part of a majority who thinks that mass murder (of the right groups, of course) is good, and then some of them start to think that it's up to them to just go and do it.
In reality, criminalizing thinking certain clearly defined wrong things protects the freedom of everyone.
> Yeah, like "all jews should be killed". Good thing.
Do you think it stops them from thinking that? Because you made is illegal.
It doesn't.
> It prevents such things from being normalized and makes it harder for them to be put in action.
This gets trotted out all the time and it is nothing but a sound bite. I haven't met anyone hear about an atrocity and genuinely say it was a good thing.
> Yeah, I know what you learned in school that this is worse than actual mass murder, and that everyone should be allowed to advocate for mass murder so that they can be disputed in the "marketplace of ideas".
No I didn't learn this in school. I have no memory of this ever being discussed at school.
I read lots of books about things like maintaining political power, how the state works and economics and I came to this conclusion myself.
> In reality, what you get is echo chambers that lead people to believe that they're part of a majority who thinks that mass murder (of the right groups, of course) is good, and then some of them start to think that it's up to them to just go and do it.
That doesn't happen. In fact the opposite happens. If you stop people from talking freely what happens is that they will only talk with people that they believe to be on their side.
> In reality, criminalizing thinking certain clearly defined wrong things protects the freedom of everyone.
It literally doesn't. Because it allows other less odious things to be criminalised when it is criminally expedient. That is because the precedent has been set.
> Do you think it stops them from thinking that? Because you made is illegal.
No, it does not stop people from thinking that (and of course that is not what is made illegal). It stops them from publishing and spreading those thoughts, because that is what is actually made illegal.
> This gets trotted out all the time and it is nothing but a sound bite.
So you don't actually have an argument against it?
> I haven't met anyone hear about an atrocity and genuinely say it was a good thing.
Then be happy that you haven't met such people. They most definitely exist:
> No, it does not stop people from thinking that (and of course that is not what is made illegal). It stops them from publishing and spreading those thoughts, because that is what is actually made illegal
No it doesn't stop that either. They just distribute it more covertly and use coded language which then the government justifies to take away more rights and ban things like E2E encryption.
> So you don't actually have an argument against it?
Sorry that is backwards. You need to show me that it is happening if you are trying to justify taking away people's rights. Repeating a sound bite that is repeated by politicians and journalists isn't an argument or evidence. BTW I've heard many of the arguments present and the "research" and frequently they were found to be lacking.
> Then be happy that you haven't met such people. They most definitely exist
So your examples are extremists which is a small number of people by definition. This is not representative of the whole.
> That is exactly what is happening all over the internet. You have to wear pretty big blinders not to see it.
No it isn't. You think it is because you go looking for it. This is known as cognitive bias.
> And those aren't gonna be a lot of people, so they won't be able to recruit others easily, and they won't start to think they're majority.
They can't recruit others easily because most people recognise immediately that these are nasty people and they want nothing to do with them. This is fantasy that a significant percentage of people will be sold on the "Hitler did nothing wrong" idea. It is a meme on the internet because people were making fun of internet neo-nazis.
> That slippery slope argument is so silly. There is no country on earth that has ever had absolute freedom of speech. Including the USA.
It isn't a slippery slope fallacy when we are sliding down the slope in the UK with people being arrested for "offensive tweets" and "posting offensive song lyrics".
So don't gaslight me about this. The fact is that we have been sliding down the slope in the UK for years now and people like you tell me erosion of speech rights isn't happening, when it has been clearly documented to happen in the UK. The same happens in Germany as well, I have spoken to ordinary Germans (not neo-nazis or extremists) that have found themselves in trouble for basically jokes.
As for the argument "the USA doesn't doesn't do it perfectly that it is okay to deny people of free speech somewhere else" isn't an argument. Also I am in the UK, not the US. I don't care about what happens in the US. You seem to be hell bent on throwing your liberties away.
> Germany has had very clear, well-defined hate speech laws since 1960, and it's ranked higher than the USA in the Press Freedom Index.
Telling me that the laws that curtail freedom of speech have been around for a long time and are well defined isn't an argument to whether they should exist or not and just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it should be done.
Don't care how great the freedom of speech is for people that in the right club (in this case journalists). It has to be for everyone including odious people.
As for hate speech that is a made up concept to curtail speech rights and has been used against ordinary people in the UK (not neo-nazis or extremists just normal people).
-------------------------
I am so fed up with people (like yourself) who constantly gas light about these laws and tell me civil liberties haven't been eroded because of these laws, when they literally have and you can find example after example where this is the case.
More generally I was out of work for 9 months because of my government's response to COVID. It depleted me of most of my savings and I am now in debt which will take me like a year or two to pay off, I had zero debt before the COVID lockdowns. SO I don't trust the government to tell me the truth, I don't trust them to be able to do anything competently and they certainly shouldn't be able to legislate what can and what can't be said.
Banned groups largely stop recruiting and killing. But then, in a different universe, maybe they would have stopped recruiting and killing even without the ban. How would you know?
Well, it's impossible to prove that no murders were committed for this reason as opposed to any other reason, so you're going to stay unhappy.
But I looked up what individual liberties it curtails, and there's something that may interest you.
The individual liberty curtailed is this: If something's banned, and someone sets up a replacement organisation, then merely being a member is punishable. The prosecution has to prove to a court that the new organisation is a replacement for the banned one, and any factual or dejure leadership may go to prison for up to five years, any other members for up to three.
The bit that will interest you is that this is quite similar to other laws. You don't have to kill anyone to have your liberties curtailed in this manner, mere economic crime will do. If you're convicted of economic crime, that may curtail your liberty to be Geschäftsführer etc.
It's ok because the thoughts they ban are not novel, they had their time and were thoroughly executed on.
You'll have hard time convincing anyone that thought "Jews are inferior race and should be exterminated" should have the same right to be considered as any other. When we already thought this thought extensively and even based our actions on it and it led only to unprecedented nhuman suffering.
> It's ok because the thoughts they ban are not novel, they had their time and were thoroughly executed on.
"Because it is not new it is okay". Sorry that isn't very convincing.
The issue is that if you ban one set of ideas you have set a precedent to ban other ideas that aren't as odious.
Using the same justification you can criminalise believing in the Earth is flat or any other fringe idea.
> You'll have hard time convincing anyone that thought "Jews are inferior race and should be exterminated" should have the same right to be considered as any other. When we already thought this thought extensively and even based our actions on it and it led only to unprecedented nhuman suffering.
I am not saying they should be considered equally. I am not saying that those ideas are equal. I am saying that someone shouldn't be criminalised for thinking or expressing such ideas.
> If you the idea is crap and it proved that it's crap by leading to genocide why would we award it any protection?
Lots of communists say that the Soviet Union wasn't "real communism". Yet I never hear the same outcry against that.
I am not saying it should be "protected". I am saying that individual liberties should be protected and one of the most important (after private property rights) is the freedom to speak you mind.
> Do tou think next time around, it will lead to something beneficial to mankind?
No.
> It did not lead to genocide. The first time it does I hope it's banned to hell.
When people questioned the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe people were punished for such ideas. So that has kind of already happened.
Do you really want people to stereotype all Germans as Nazis and Holocaust deniers? Because I'm pretty sure this is what would end up happening if the German government did not go to the trouble of explicitly banning these things, regardless of how few people actually advocated them. It's practically a free boost in optics and national pride that benefits pretty much all Germans at basically zero cost, because it's only banning the most obscenely offensive and pointless idiocy. (Yes, Holocaust denial is idiotic - the evidence of it in German archives and elsewhere is utterly overwhelming. The remaining question wrt. history is whether Hitler and the Nazis actually planned even worse genocides than what they ended up doing, and the most likely answer is yes, they absolutely did.)
> Do you really want people to stereotype all Germans as Nazis and Holocaust deniers? Because I'm pretty sure this is what would end up happening if the German government did not go to the trouble of explicitly banning these things, regardless of how few people actually advocated them.
No it wouldn't. This is a ridiculous argument.
> It's basically a free boost in optics and national pride that benefits practically all Germans at basically zero cost, because it's only banning the most obscenely offensive and pointless idiocy.
The cost is individual liberty. Which BTW if you haven't been paying attention has been eroded severely all over the globe in almost every western country over the last two years. So no it is not zero cost.
What about the average German's liberty of not having his country publicly badmouthed due to the actions of a few crazy nutcases? It's hard to seriously argue that this wouldn't happen, given Germany's post-WWII history. (Also I'm not sure why you're bringing up the 'last two years', the prohibition has been in place for far longer than that.)
You are advocating for throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> It's hard to seriously argue that this wouldn't happen, given Germany's post-WWII history. (Also I'm not sure why you're bringing up the 'last two years', the prohibition has been in place for far longer than that.)
The German government (not the German people) are the ones that are giving themselves a bad name by denying people their individual liberty. Those liberties include (and are not limited to), the right to speak freely even if that speech is unpopular.
Regarding the last two year. During last two years we have had individual rights eroded all over the western world due under the guise of controlling the spread of COVID. Just like we had our rights eroded due to the threat of terrorism at the hands of Islamic extremists.
Personally I was unemployed for 9 months because of the economic uncertainty caused by lockdowns and it depleted me of almost all my savings and almost killed my business. I owe about £25,000 (bank loans and credit cards etc) and it will take me another year to pay it all off at least.
