Rising fascism in the US

I'm only at minute 20. I have quite distinct disagreement with most of his points, but absolutely not hate speech. I'll finish later.

Pretty sure the case that the SC found in favor of speech was an Asian band who wanted to call themselves The Slants. Suit was brought that the name was hate speech.

The court sided with speech.

Thankfully.

Defining hate speech would be a morass.

I think there's every need. You talk of slippery slopes and other vagaries but not of anything specific. Why not specifically point out how democracy has been compromised by the refusal to protect hate speech in Western Europe?

I've been very specific, a commitment to protecting hate speech has given you a Nazi sympathising president, Nazis on the march, a news network that is under no obligation to broadcast the truth, trigger happy racist police, extraordinary rendition and torture.

Perhaps a commitment to human rights would serve you better.

Because that's the alternative to not allowing hate speech, North Korea? You're being hysterical. Nothing stops us from "decrying Theresa May's shortcomings" at all.

I thought you were reasonably level headed and sober but clearly that's not the case. When one of your sacred cows is threatened you start to sound like Gungasnake.

So point out the problems that have bedevilled countries that do not support hate speech. Be specific, no more vague hysterical nonsense please.

I think Izzy's suggestion to compare speech in Europe and the US is a great place to start. I've found a few articles that cover some of the issues I'm interested in.

I probably won't even finish reading these until much later today, but I did want to make them available for anyone else to consider.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-03-19/free-speech-in-europe-isn-t-what-americans-think

Odd site, but feel free to tell me if the facts aren't accurate and we'll remove this article from consideration.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150616/11252831361/huge-loss-free-speech-europe-human-rights-court-says-sites-liable-user-comments.shtml

Some speech/expression issues in Europe.

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-speech-fail/amp/

One problem with your article is the assumption that Europe is one country like America. It's not. Some countries in Europe have tried to ban the hijab, not others. In Britain there are no bans on such items except where it interferes with one's ability to do the job. A teaching assistant lost her job because many of the small kids could not make out what she was saying because of the veil.

At least your default position isn't North Korea. I fail to see how American Democracy is protected by someone being able to say that all Mexicans are rapists.

Europe isn't what that Bloomberg article suggests.
It isn't one country but 49 countries, all with different laws and constitutions.

The European Court of Justice is an EU-court(= only for Eu-countries and related to EU-laws).
There aren't single judges advisory opinions but these are done by the prosecution (and there's indeed just one prosecutor signing this advice [here it was the Advocate General]).

The ruling (not advise) in this case was done by the Grand Chamber,the judges were K. Lenaerts (President), A. Tizzano (Vice-President), R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Ilešič, L. Bay Larsen, M. Berger, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, A. Borg Barthet, J. Malenovský, E. Levits, F. Biltgen (Rapporteur), K. Jürimäe and C. Lycourgos.

Any article starting with selfmade facts like the one you quoted can't be informative.

An informative article (from 2003) about the situation by is here (in English): The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional
Law

Appreciate your comments and links, Walter and Izzy. I look forward to getting through these later.

hmmmm.........

Then I won't use the Bloomberg article. Thank you.

This has my panties twisted a bit. I don't want to be censured or to have reading material wiped from my view because some algorithm or cubical spider decides that the material is offensive to someone.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/442031001/

When we abdicate our right to decide for ourselves, the people who get to decide suddenly have far too much power over what version of reality the public sees/reads.

I don't trust any person or ENTITY to make those judgements for me. This is my primary argument.

I'm going to tell you the truth: I hate most of what I know about the more conservative practice of Islam. I know there are a few variations under the big Islam umbrella, but I pretty passionately despise FGM, and the mindset that requires women to be covered and treated like second class citizens. I hate honor killings. I hate the ruthless, patriarchal control of women and girls.

I also think considering the recent global climate of attack/retribution against western societies by middle Eastern societies, more conservative coverings such as burkas are a security risk... but with all of that said, some European laws against traditional religious clothing gets under my skin. I feel denying women the right to dress as their religion requires is fundamentally wrong except when security is the overriding concern.

Calling Ben Shapiro a Nazi could be considered hate speech. It miffed me, but rounding up everyone who said it is preposterous.

I'm surprised Germany can fine Facebook and internet sites because Germany deems so much content to be afoul of their hate speech laws.

I need to get a look at other speech and expression cases in Germany and other European countries. I'm definitely geared to champion more individual freedom, and currently I draw the line at incitement to violence.

This power to censure and erase speech could be the mightiest weapon ever known if it is misused.

Excerpted from the Foreign Policy link.

While there are historical justifications for some of these policies, they raise important questions and produce awkward results. Why is it impermissible to deny the Holocaust but permissible to deny the Armenian genocide? Or the evils of the slave trade and colonialism for that matter? What is the metric used for determining whether something is “hate” speech, or just permissible criticism? Increasingly, laws against hatred and offense have come to target controversial but non-violent speech including that of comedians, politicians critical of immigration, as well as Muslims vocally opposed to Western foreign policy. Moreover, there seems to be little evidence suggesting that suppressing speech leads to higher levels of tolerance in liberal democracies. A new report from Germany’s domestic intelligence agency shows not only that there were 500 more extreme-right entities in 2015 than in 2014, but also that there has been a 42 percent increase in violent acts by right-wing extremists over that same period. American NGO Human Rights First also documented a doubling of anti-Semitic hate crimes in France from 2014-2015. A recent report by two Norwegian researchers suggests that an environment where controversial expressions are filtered out may increase the risk of extremist violence.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom – the liberal democracies that have traditionally been more tolerant of intolerance (though no European state offers as robust a protection of free speech as the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution). Lately, however, it seems that even these states are edging closer toward a militant democracy-style approach.

Those questions might be correct.
Another question, however, would be, why only neo-Nazi groups and the extreme right want to change our constitution about this.

I was looking around to find info about the legality and personal safety of a German citizen who might desire to bring suit against Germany's speech/expression law, and I ran into this article from a decidedly lefty site.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-02/germany-passes-orwellian-anti-free-speech-facebook-law

It made me think about CameronLeon, our new A2K Holocaust denier.

I don't know how far reaching Germany's internet law is, but is this site liable for our holocaust denier? You're in Germany. Our 'noncompliant' site is being beamed into your borders...

Obviously, I have not one clue in hell about the reach of the German law, or how that law and associated fines shake out with mark zuckerburg or Craven de Kere, I just know I don't want to have my content interfered with by German law.

I see I have a lot of reading to do.

I'd venture thay A2K is way too small to feel concerned -- it's under the radar.

Nazis can keep writing here, Yeepee!