So what was that about Germany having free speech?

[Juxtapose]

Fat jokes are illegal in Germany LOL. Germans don't have free speech.

[nightdrot]

While I don't have a lot of background on this matter, I will say that in Germany - and Europe generally - free speech laws are construed somewhat differently than in the United States. Consequently, it is not really a good idea to do one-on-one comparisons as they can be misleading. Such laws must be judged in context.

This case does seem somewhat trivial, yet German laws against hate speech, particularly against Jews, are far more restrictive than in the United States. Not without reason, to say no more.

As I say, I don't wish to make too much of this particular case, but given Germany's history, laws against defamation - even on what seems in the USA to be a trivial matter - are quite strict. Free speech is acceptable except to the extent that it questions the very nature of democracy itself - and in the German context, that includes insults or attacks on democratically elected leaders.

Bottom line - and I write this as a person with relatives in Europe, including Germany - we need to be careful in our analysis of any given set of laws. Taken out of context, this does honestly seem trivial and anti-free speech. However, the historical context of a nation's laws are crucial to judging the nature of those laws and this case, at least, needs more context before a judgment can be made about it.

[Juxtapose]

That's a lot of flowery language to essentially say they are pussies who were traumatized by war and cannot handle the free & open marketplace of ideas.

[Juxtapose]

Are people who censor ever the good guys when we remember them? No.

[nightdrot]

Well, to quote Burke, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

All rights are made in balance with other rights and obligations. Define rights not as a means to an end but as mere ends in themselves and bad things can result. A marketplace of ideas - which really is a cliche masquerading as an idea - does not negate that we must see the nature of the marketplace.

The Nazis had, in the Weimar Republic, a wide open marketplace of ideas. They prevailed and that ended the marketplace. When judging a marketplace, we cannot forget what it looks like.

[Juxtapose]

Sometimes bad ideas can prevail in the open marketplace of ideas. In the closed marketplace of ideas? Bad ideas are all there is. You can't change anything, your most fundamental freedom to express yourself and grow through dialogue with others is completely robbed from you.

People who censor are not the good guys and do not believe in the open marketplace of ideas.

[Juxtapose]

If you take away freedom of speech you take away freedom of thought since in order to have proper resolution of internal questions, you must bounce those questions off of other people in a free environment. Without that your mental development is stunted and retarded, then you are not free of thought even.

[nightdrot]

You have to balance all rights. If freedom of speech is absolute, you then give license to the abolition of free speech. After all, the right to speak the idea implies the right of the idea to prevail. (See also again my Weimar Republic example.)

No right is absolute and time, historical and cultural context helps to define the parameter of rights. We want rights, but rights that are so absolute that they admit of the abolition of rights are problematic.

To quote Burke again, “All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; we give and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and we choose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants.” Indeed, while abstract perfect rights exist, "their abstract perfection is their practical defect."

[Juxtapose]

No not necessarily. In America you can daydream about genocide all you want but that is not going to make it come to fruition. Germany had unique circumstances after World War I that led to a lot of unrest that simply is not going to happen United States like that. Free speech does not give the idea of genocide the right to prevail. You can also pontificate about slavery in the United States and say the Confederacy should have won and we should all totally have black slaves. That does not give the idea the right to manifest into our new reality.. not that censorship would stop that idea anyway. You saw how American politicians tried to kill Communism. You can't kill an idea (yes, when I visited Germany I did actually see a Nazi).

I am pretty close to a free speech absolutist. There's almost no situation where free speech is a bad thing. Go all in on free speech and even add provisions to enhance free speech on the internet. We need more of it, not less.

[nightdrot]

On your first point... really? What happened to the Native Americans back in the day. Slavery? Lynchings, etc. (Oh, and by the way, I had family - whom I knew and talked to - who lived in Nazi Germany and escaped from communist East Germany and have been to Germany since. Believe me, I know it well.)

Frankly, I would not trade our history for anyone else's, but the notion that we live in pristine isolation from a dark past is not exactly borne out by history. The South - after all - would not give up its' right to advocate for and have slaves until a civil war settled the matter.

Nope, you probably can never kill an idea totally, but to give it currency and avenues of expression is to sustain it. Absolutism is fine so long as you recognized that culture, life, government and politics are far more nuanced and complex than any simple rule will allow for. Give an idea absolute expression and you give that idea the right to prevail.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Just to add, as the columnist George Will once put it, absolutism is a convenience. It spares you the torture of having to think and weigh and balance and make measured judgments. It's appeal is understandable, but it misses much.

[Juxtapose]

I'm talking about modern America. We didn't need to sacrifice free speech to get rid of slavery and we are in no danger of having slavery exist simply because we allow the idea to exist. Like I said, you can't kill an idea. Censoring it is not going to help anything & it makes you one of the bad guys to censor.

[Juxtapose]

Look at the United Kingdom and how screwed they are with their freedom of speech. What are they getting from that censorship? Absolutely nothing good. What is China getting from its censorship? Absolutely nothing good. What is Germany getting from its censorship? Absolutely nothing good.

[Juxtapose]

And just to say about absolutism, people are very fond of overly using nuance because they can discuss small little points and get lost in the details until people don't want to continue the discussion out of frustration. Then nothing actually changes because there's so much uncertainty nobody wants to do anything.

Simplifying discussions is a great gift and overly complicating them just leads to nothing getting done.

[Juxtapose]

You can overcomplicate things to the point where you won't even admit murdering babies is wrong because of cultural relativism and the subjectivity of morality. But if you cut out the bullshit you know murdering babies is not productive and it's not going to make anybody but evil people feel good.

I'm not talking about abortion but straight up baby murder.

[nightdrot]

Free speech on abortion prevails and the abortionists win. There you have the result.

You have tried to tidy this up a bit by pointing to a particular moment in time - contemporary America. However, politics and government and culture are more complicated than you think. They are in an ongoing dynamic and you cannot simply hit the "STOP" button when you get where you think you want to be.

To get back to abortion, it is not that the issue got overcomplicated. Rather, it got grossly oversimplified. One absolute right opposed to another absolute right. The issue is far more nuanced and complex than that.

At the risk of seeming vain, see also my response to a question posted on this site: Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion? ↗

[Juxtapose]

Please reread my thing on baby killing because I was not referring to abortion at all.

[Juxtapose]

"You can overcomplicate things to the point where you won't even admit murdering babies is wrong because of cultural relativism and the subjectivity of morality. But if you cut out the bullshit you know murdering babies is not productive and it's not going to make anybody but evil people feel good.

I'm not talking about abortion but straight up baby murder."

Again, not abortion but straight up baby murder. The baby is out of the womb and is completely viable.

[nightdrot]

My point was the same principle applies. See my article. Once the value of human life become relativized and not absolute, life becomes the equivalent of hamburger. Mere raw material to be dispensed with as we see fit.

Not for nothing do we see abortion, crime, murder all go up more or less in tandem. There is a broader and more nuanced cultural force at work and there is no moment where we can simply hit the stop button.

To quote Burke again, "There is no finality in politics."

[Juxtapose]

That's why I don't like to overcomplicate things. We can get into the cultural relativism territory real fucking quick by having too much nuance introduced.

Losing freedom of speech is an incredibly keen and horrific loss inflicted on pretty much any society. Free societies need freedom of speech to function or they will not be free.

[nightdrot]

The point is that things ARE complicated and the assertion of rights must be defined in an historical context. Again, if the right to free speech is absolute than the right to advocate the abolition of free speech is absolute.

Once that is accepted you give the latter as much standing to prevail as the former. Our rights are not abstract, but are - to repeat - rooted in our historical experience and moral and intellectual understanding.

You hate the idea of losing freedom of speech - but if that be the case, then you have no standing to oppose the open advocacy of its' abolition. It is a subtle and nuanced historical process.

To quote Burke once more: "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe."

[Juxtapose]

You can keep free speech in a society that allows you to advocate abolishing it by culturally conditioning people to be in favor of free speech and stopping immigration of foreigners who do not appreciate free speech. You have to socialize children to be the citizens you want and when they are adults it is largely too late.

[nightdrot]

That begs the question - how do we socialize children? Culture, experience and education. If you only expose them to those ideas that you prefer, then you are in violation of your own principles and are apt, in due course, to be so accused.

To repeat, even in the USA in this day and age you have arguments over the limits of free speech all the time. Again, you socialize children by exposing them to the questions about the parameters of our rights. (See also abortion.)

You are stuck in an intellectual hall of mirrors. To repeat, if you make free speech absolute, you give license to the expression of ideas opposed to free speech and the right of those ideas to prevail.

[Juxtapose]

You can have absolute free speech but favor different ideas culturally. You could have a culture that worships the Easter Bunny and pimps that out but still lets you say whatever you want.

The citizens simply must be socialized properly as children and a lot of that load goes to the parents.

[nightdrot]

Again, you greatly oversimplify a more complex process. We have a culture that is socialized in free speech - and yet there are still arguments over the extent of free speech, and always have been. (Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater and all that.)

Bottom line, you keep attempting to advocate a simple solution to complex problems. Note the plural.

If you advocate for absolute free speech and socialize the culture accordingly, you open the gate to the expression of ideas hostile to free speech. This then thereby admitting the possibility that those ideas will to a greater or lesser degree, prevail.

Bottom line is, buddy, you are chasing your intellectual tail on this one. We have had over 2 centuries of arguments over the extent and limits of free speech. That is not likely to change if all you do is slap your fist on the ground and say, "Free Speech." Politics and culture, as I say, are more nuanced and complicated than that.

[Juxtapose]

Free speech is actually very simple and in the open marketplace of ideas, usually good ideas win. The people who censor are not the good guys.

It really is that simple.

[Juxtapose]

Besides, censorship doesn't work.

[nightdrot]

No, it is not that simple. At the very least we would not have 200 years of Supreme Court rulings on the issue if it were.

Besides, you would not be arguing for socializing the culture in free speech - especially in the Internet age - if it were so simple. You get to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

On an aside, if I might suggest to you the works of Edmund Burke - considered the father of classical conservatism - and of more recent vintage "Statecraft as Soulcraft" by George F. Will.

[Juxtapose]

We have vigorous debates on the most simple things because people love to overcomplicate issues. You will have so-called "intellectuals" actually debate you on if killing live babies is evil or not. They say evil is relative and all kinds of other bullshit but we know that there is almost no situation where killing babies for the fuck of it is going to be at all positive for any reason whatsoever. It is not logical and it will not make many people happy. But the cultural relativist will debate it until their last breath.

Then you have people that will debate if the reality we live in is even real or not. Are we in a simulation? Do we have free will? Does any of this matter at all depending on if we are in a simulation or not?

Just so much wasted time on inane bullshit when we could take simple solutions and focus. The reason why things are so fucking slow is because people refuse to break things down and focus. They overcomplicate and debate and debate on things that do not need to be overcomplicated.

We either culturally commit to have the open marketplace of ideas or we don't and we become like China. Sure the process of getting this to work is not always easy but say things are complicated and therefore nothing can get done and we have to accept this shitty situation is just so fucking annoying to me. People do this a lot, they really over complicate things.

[nightdrot]

Well, okay, we stop here. To be sure, I don't agree that every issue is of equal weight, but at this point you are just simply falling back on caricatures and epithets and that is NOT serious.

Man is complicated and we have thousand of years and millions of books discussing these questions. When you find yourself boiling it all down to "time wasted on inane bu******" you have abdicated the argument and are simply falling back of generalizations and caricature.

Again, take a look at the authors I suggested to you - and there are plenty more. You will begin to get a proper appreciation of the complexity of society and its' politics.

[Juxtapose]

In that case I will leave you with an acronym from the United States Marines.

K. I. S. S.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose @nightdrot I read all of this (excellent job all around), and this is where I land:

The right to free speech, including opinions and expressions, is absolute:

"I believe that person deserves a punch."

The right to free action, based on speech/expression/opinion is NOT absolute:

Actually punching someone, because you're following through with your expressed opinion, or someone else punching that someone, because they were following through on your expressed opinion.

[nightdrot]

@NYCQuestions1976 First, thanks for your kind compliment.

As to your suggestion, it is already not accepted in law. See the aforementioned "yelling of 'fire' in a crowded theater. Also, incitement to violence is to limited in various ways. Also, you may not disclose classified information without authorization.

These, and others, having been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

So while you propose a fair compromise, in practice things are more nuanced and complicated than that. Thanks though for your input.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@nightdrot Sure, your examples are accurate and correct, but I'd argue that they don't really fall under the First Amendment in the first place.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater isn't an opinion or an expression. It's making a direct threat onto others that doesn't exist, or alarming others of a direct threat that doesn't exist.

As for inciting violence, "I'm going to punch you." is absolutely a direct threat. Suggesting that someone deserves a punch is a verbal opinion protected by the First Amendment.

Same goes for sharing an individual's classified information. We're all entitled to individual personal privacy under the Constitution, and sharing personal private information is a direct threat. The government itself? Eh, not so much. The government is supposed to be transparent, and operate with transparency. Just because we generally accept otherwise doesn't mean that it's okay.

With that said, there are definitely some layers to all of this. One personal pet peeve that I've got that I'll use as an example is when we practice joint military operation exercises with our allies. The government and the news should definitely let us know when we have such exercises, but going as far as to sharing the latitude and longitude of such exercises is completely ridiculous and unacceptable. I mean, can we make it just a little bit difficult on our enemies to find out such information?

So there are definitely nuances in everything, and every scenario and situation is unique.

[nightdrot]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, but your argument was that the free speech was absolute but free action was not. (By he way, I also forgot to mention the laws prohibiting libel and slander.)

Clearly, the free speech right is not - as all rights are not - unlimited. Time and manner constraints are observed and recognized in law. Grant that free speech may have more latitude than other rights, but even it is limited in various ways.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@nightdrot Libel and slander are also direct illegal personal attacks, not opinions. However they both need to be proven in a civil or criminal court. They're not the "default position".

[nightdrot]

@NYCQuestions1976 They are speech - verbal and written, respectively. Not sure what you mean by default position, but the bottom line is you are right. You end up in court because speech is NOT unlimited and it has to be determined what the nature of the speech was.

As to the distinction between an attack and an opinion, if you call former President Biden a befuddled old man, if that an opinion - perhaps medical - or a slander?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@nightdrot I meant that the default position is the First Amendment. Then court determines otherwise, if and when applicable.

That's an interesting example. When you choose a career path in politics and government, you allow yourself to be exposed to criticism and negative opinions by the general public, because you're supposed to be serving the general public. Thus opinions on Joe Biden’s mental health issues serving as President of the United States are political fair game. I suppose if President Biden wanted to specifically sue me for slander (since I happen to believe your example), he's definitely in his rights to do so. However, Defense Exhibit A would be this:

https://youtu.be/i3eYmc1AkMs?si=hon8UkqiS99UXjq6

Case dismissed. 👍

[nightdrot]

@NYCQuestions1976 Loved your concluding line!!

[Avicenna]

@nightdrot, a country that criminalizes defamation cannot be said to merely be interpreting differently. It also criminalizes things like giving another driver the middle finger.

The speech restrictions long pre-date the Nazi era (one of my great-great grandmothers was fined for making fun of the Kaiser's mustache circa 1910), and actually serve the same function they did in the Middle Ages- to prevent criticism of the ruling class.

[nightdrot]

@Avicenna Please note, I did not mean to say this was only a manifestation of the Nazi experience. Speech laws and the definition of rights and such are often far different in most of Europe. The evolution of such laws was more developmental over time as compared to the USA where rights were founded in law at a particular moment in history when the ideas of the Enlightenment had become a force in the culture.

Yup, even today, Germany, France, Italy and even Britain have a different construction and understanding of rights than we do in the USA.

[Avicenna]

I can only speak for Germany's laws because of my familiarity with that country, but while the specifics of speech laws may have evolved over time, there is a clear overarching theme in them. And one effect is the country's relative lack of debate on public policy.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@nightdrot Thanks!

@Avicenna Agreed. A world where it's illegal to poke fun at someone using sarcasm is not only extremely dangerous, it also just flat-out sad and boring. If I was forced to never use sarcasm ever again, it'd be like clipping the wings of a bald eagle.

[Unit1]

Pretty sure someone pressed charges on basis of "insult" towards the joke. Laws have loopholes. In the wisdom of Andrew Tate, if they (the matrix, the judge) like you, they'll let you off the hook and if they don't like you or see a benefit to get you punished, they'll attack you.

https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/defamation-libel-lawyer-germany/insult/?lang=en

[Juxtapose]

Insulting people should not be illegal.

[Drewtate]

Nazis anti free speech laws still in place

[gatixek710]

There are some Germans on this site who are very vocal with their opinions on how the US should be run. Maybe they should sit down for a bit and think this out.

[Juxtapose]

Yep, they should take a look at their own country first.

[goaded]

So, two different countries, two different systems for dealing with insults.

Germany: If you're insulted in public you can call the police and have them arrested (possibly jailed, but probably just fined or warned).

United States: You can shoot them.

Is that right? Me, I prefer the former.

[Drewtate]

I remember my brother had to have a word with a German woman who came over here. She got into a verbal argument with a large black woman who parked in her space and she got knocked on her ass. In Germany apparently it's perfectly normal for people to scream abuse at another without getting punched in the face.

[goaded]

@Drewtate Isn't that assault?

[Drewtate]

Depending where you live verbally abuse is considered assault and maybe a hate crime.
Hitting someone who verbally abuses you is generally assault but so much seems to depend on the judge, prosecutor lawyer and your word vs theirs at least here in the us. It can be argued that the verbal abuser instigated themselves bring hit with threatening behaviour. Then there's always the chance that in the moment thd person that hits you doesn't care about the legal, wouldn't care about legal consequences regardless and of course the person who hi. mt you is never caught because police can't find them or don't look.

[Avicenna]

LOL, anyone familiar with the country knows that they have lots of speech restrictions. And they are selectively enforced.

[Avicenna]

If Lang had been a member of the AfD, there would not have been an investigation. But she's a Green Party bigwig, so...

[WhiteBoyChill]

Didn’t Germany basically outlaw Nazism as soon as WW2 ended?

They haven’t had free speech since at least 1946

[Juxtapose]

Correct.

[DryGermanGuy]

I have heard that in the United States I am not allowed to shoot my weapons in front of my neighbors’ houses? That’s an outrage! Where is muh freedom?

[Juxtapose]

Both irrelevant and a strawman.

[Juxtapose]

It's also a what aboutism.

[DryGermanGuy]

You still have a problem to accept different laws in different countries. We want peace and quiet here, not some dumb useless right to insult everyone everywhere. Wtf…

[BetaBucks]

But would you support left wing people for saying offensive things about right wing people or about identity groups that you don't prioritize? This isn't a "gotcha" as I don't know you and I'm genuinely curious.

From my perspective, I don't see it as humane. Even if someone makes 100 posts making fun of me, I would never want them to be arrested, or even investigated, over it. Hell, I'd fight on their side if they were ever targeted by law enforcement over it.

[BetaBucks]

Support arresting*

[Juxtapose]

You have some serious mental problems if you think somebody insulting someone over the internet (without a threat) deserves prison time. You fundamentally do not believe in free speech.

[WhiteBoyChill]

This is a very absurd comparison.

Is there any country in the world where a person can just randomnly fire guns around in a neighborhood and everyone will just go “eh whatever, that’s life”

[BoopBoopBeep]

@WhiteBoyChill Afghanistan. At least the five years I lived there.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@BoopBoopBeep I meant like in the sense of a crazy lunatic firing a gun around. Not like an active war zone or neighborhood infested with gangs kind of deal

[BoopBoopBeep]

@WhiteBoyChill Saudi Arabia then. Any time there's a wedding.

[Avicenna]

Germany's restrictions on speech are used to stifle public debate, although there's some collateral damage as well.

[Dongie]

Screw the woke.
Always tell the truth takes on a little shine when knowing you expose them as a joke.

[DrPepper12]

What are you talking about? A representative of a governmental organization insulted her. That representative should be reprimanded for being insensitive when dealing with the public.

[Juxtapose]

That's absurd! People can't insult each other without legal consequences? Free speech is dead in your mind.

[DrPepper12]

Private citizens can. Representatives of a organization funded by taxpayers cannot. She should be reprimanded but there's no crime

[Juxtapose]

By your standard Elon Musk could not insult people on his own platform because he receives taxpayer money. That is ridiculous.

[Juxtapose]

Free speech doesn't magically disappear when you are given money.

[DrPepper12]

Not directly he doesn't. He's not an employee

[NYCQuestions1976]

No Fatty Alfredo jokes in Germany? Obviously it's stupid, but I don't live there.

[MicahRaine]

My analysis is that she is indeed fat.

[Dongie]

I concur.