Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning From Its Own History of Hate

[MicroBrew]

This doesn't feel...off to you? It sounds almost religious. It's like a Christian saying that all religions may have merit, but the only true path to spiritual enlightenment is through Jesus of Nazareth. Like, of course you'd say that, you're a Christian. Your entire concept of spiritual enlightenment was formed by Christianity.

Do you think you would still have that belief if you grew up in another culture?

No, it's nothing like religion. There is no imposition on people to think a certain way or believe a certain way. Free Speech is the opposite of religious imposition, it is the right of people to believe and say whatever they want .

 

[Leagon]

No, it's nothing like religion. There is no imposition on people to think a certain way or believe a certain way. Free Speech is the opposite of religious imposition, it is the right of people to believe and say whatever they want .

I think it's pretty obvious that I wasn't comparing freedom of speech to religion. I was saying that your view on freedom of speech seems encoded in the same way that many religions are. Dawkins used to make the point about how if there was any truth to religion, it shouldn't matter where you are born. And yet people's religions almost always map on to the dominant religion of their birth location. I was saying that if you were born in a society without free speech, you probably wouldn't have this Americentric definition of freedom.

 

[Halge]

It is becoming a more and more rational alternative for countries to just do what China did: Set up their own national social networking sites. Within which they are free to suppress, or facilitate, free speech as they see fit.
I wish it wasn't necessary to un-globalize that way, but it is becoming a matter of national security.
My home country, which has a very extensive public sector, has moved a lot of its information/communication services to Facebook and other private sector platforms that are completely out of our control. What goes is ultimately almost entirely up to Facebook and Google.

 

[Leagon]

If Freedom of Speech were a protected right in pre WW2 Germany it would have been much more difficult for Hitler to rise into power and much more easy for him and the Nazi party to be delegitimized and ran out of power. Yes. Its actually a very simple principle. When you can't kill or detain the opposition for their thoughts and words, the have the ability to oppose you.

So you're saying Hitler was legally allowed to kill his opposition? Because if his actions were illegal, doesn't that mean the speech of his opposition was protected by law?

I'm sure this is all very simple for your brilliant internet forum mind and you no doubt have a lot of experience implementing such policies at a local, state, or federal level, but for many of us simpletons, this is in fact a recurring difficulty in governance and has been so for several thousand years. Laws are ultimately just words and their enforcement is vital. When someone has used their words to hijack law enforcement, laws no longer mean anything. This happens all the time in countries that have "free speech." With your incredible knowledge, you should go become president of some third world country. Teach them how free speech will lead to perpetual stability and prosperity.

 

[Cid]

I think it's pretty obvious that I wasn't comparing freedom of speech to religion. I was saying that your view on freedom of speech seems encoded in the same way that many religions are. Dawkins used to make the point about how if there was any truth to religion, it shouldn't matter where you are born. And yet people's religions almost always map on to the dominant religion of their birth location. I was saying that if you were born in a society without free speech, you probably wouldn't have this Americentric definition of freedom.

Americentric definition of freedom.


Americentric definition of freedom: We can say whatever we want and own guns.

You wouldn't understand freedom you foreign commie. It's why your country has so many of its citizens walking the streets instead of residing in jail.

 

[Rematch]

Here, I'll give you a scenario. Your mission is to kill Joe. However, you cannot actual kill him personally, nor hire a hitman. Instead, you have to convince someone else to kill him, but you can't outright say "go kill Joe." And there's no time limit. If it takes 35 years, it takes 35 years.

Are you telling me that you couldn't do that? What if you have thousands of people that basically worshiped you? Or a Twitter platform of several million people? I think any adult of above average intelligence and/or charisma could figure out how to get that done simply through slurs, jokes, and criticism.

I'm all for free speech. I love it. But I think the people in this thread have been acting as if it doesn't also present an enormous problem to the stability and safety of some countries.

The person who killed Joe is responsible for murder. To hold accountable speech that did not order the murder of Joe especially under the scenario you described would be immature and reactionary response.

 

[Rematch]

You don't think public speech played any role in facilitating the Holocaust?

You don't think public speeches made by Gandhi played any role India's independence?
You don't think public speeches made by the likes of MLK and Malcolm X played any role in the US civil rights movement?
You don't think that public speeches in many countries played a role in workers' unions being formed?

Why do you want to throw out he baby with the bath water?

 

[berimBOWLoh]

It will certainly be interesting. Also, Facebook has really reinforced my belief that most people are complete fucking imbeciles.

i always wanted to impose a holiday to remind people of how stupid they really are. A day where you can only use technology new and old if you truly understand how it works. Most people couldnt drive cars, use TV/Phones/Internet, electricity, water system etc etc. Might make people appreciate how much we need each other and how really its the top 10% that make this bitch happen and most of us just benefit from their intelligence.

 

[Rematch]

This feels like a step towards totalitarian government and oppression, not a step away from it. Punishing and silencing dissenting thought is great when the good guys are in charge, but how long does that stay true?

The good guys are only good until they have power that cannot be challenged. At least that's what history has shown.

 

[Leagon]

The person who killed Joe is responsible for murder. To hold accountable speech that did not order the murder of Joe especially under the scenario you described would be immature and reactionary response.

If you believe that humans beings can't make each other do things via words, and you have evidence to back this up, you should publish your findings and collect your Nobel prize. It would literally overturn all of modern psychology, economics, anthropology, criminology, espionage, etc. You would be hailed as the greatest genius of the new century.

 

[Leagon]

You don't think public speeches made by Gandhi played any role India's independence?
You don't think public speeches made by the likes of MLK and Malcolm X played any role in the US civil rights movement?
You don't think that public speeches in many countries played a role in workers' unions being formed?

Why do you want to throw out he baby with the bath water?

Where have I stated that free speech should be "thrown out"?

 

[Rematch]

Where have I stated that free speech should be "thrown out"?

You are suggesting that certain speech should be verbotten which naturally leads to repercussions from government.

 

[Rematch]

If you believe that humans beings can't make each other do things via words, and you have evidence to back this up, you should publish your findings and collect your Nobel prize. It would literally overturn all of modern psychology, economics, anthropology, criminology, espionage, etc. You would be hailed as the greatest genius of the new century.

"Make" people do things? So now mere expressions of non-violent ideas should be held accountable for violence? What shit.

 

[oldshadow]

Their house their rules but don't try and act like this is not the government controling and removing freedoms the people should have.

Freespeach is very important to a healthy country. It can have some limits but the limits should always be as few as possible.

Incite to violence is the standard but even then it must be narrow.

The new left is crazy and the old liberals are turning over in their grave.

The far right wanted to stop free speech and the left fought for it always.

Now the new left with the hurt feelings is making the old far right look sane.

 

[Stoic1]

A mod should delete all of Leagon's posts. Just to make a point.

 

[Leagon]

You are suggesting that certain speech should be verbotten which naturally leads to repercussions from government.

I have never suggested that. I have only suggested 2 things:

1. Germany, given their recent history, may have a better understand of the negative ramifications of free speech than other nations.

2. It is unlikely that the advent of free speech marks the end of human progress. We will continue to innovate and problem solve and come up with different ways to maximize whatever we define as human freedom.

 

[Leagon]

"Make" people do things? So now mere expressions of non-violent ideas should be held accountable for violence? What shit.

Again, publish your findings. There are generations of PhDs who haven't managed to reach your level of understanding of human suggestibility. Fame and fortune awaits you.

 

[BjPenn2017]

A mod should delete all of Leagon's posts. Just to make a point.

Scary when a good percentage of population can be convinced and conditioned to think we shouldn't have or need free speech, and almost openly advocate against it like I've seen a few posters on here do.

 

[MicroBrew]

I think it's pretty obvious that I wasn't comparing freedom of speech to religion. I was saying that your view on freedom of speech seems encoded in the same way that many religions are. Dawkins used to make the point about how if there was any truth to religion, it shouldn't matter where you are born. And yet people's religions almost always map on to the dominant religion of their birth location. I was saying that if you were born in a society without free speech, you probably wouldn't have this Americentric definition of freedom.

No it isn't comparable, cause your analogy is akin to saying Atheism is a religion, to which the retort is that Atheism is the lack of religion, so calling Atheism a religion is like saying being bald is a hairstyle. Religion stipulates a certain dogma and opposes other dogmas, and in the same way those who seek to limit Free Speech want to impose certain dogmas on the populace and want to restrict or oppose other dogmas. Lack of Free Speech and support for restricting Free Speech is actually more apt to being compared to religion, since both want to restrict what people believe and limit peoples' utility to think for themselves.

I lived in England and the MidEast and have been to France many times, and parts of S.E. Asia. The stark difference in having Free Speech and not having Free Speech is evident in all these countries.

 

[MicroBrew]

Scary when a good percentage of population can be convinced and conditioned to think we shouldn't have or need free speech, and almost openly advocate against it like I've seen a few posters on here do.

That really is scary and this point needs to be publicized. How the Euros have been conditioned to oppose their own liberty and freedoms. It is more understandable why MidEastern and Asian don't much care for Free Speech since they are very communal and collectivist minded. But the West has always preferred individualism and protecting the dissemination of ideas over feelings.