Why is free speech so taboo in Europe?

Why is free speech so taboo in Europe?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

((()))

>hate speech
How can a continent be this much cuck?

>le cucks XD
Hmm...

We have the same stupid laws, man

...

People generally don't want to hear things they don't like to hear, and people will use any means to get their will. It's only natural that speech that people dislike is made illegal.
A better question would be why Americans allow free speech, it's not natural.

Even if you did (and I don't think you do), South America doesn't have the influence to try and strong-arm Facebook, Twitter, etc. into enforcing their bullshit.

The last time europe engaged in free speech 70 million people died.

Globalists.

?
we don't have this

It's actually impressive that free speech has lasted as long as it did in America. Most Millennials actually want to ban hate speech though so it may not last too much longer.

Because we don't want Russian puppets for presidents.

Isn't "free speech" by itself a bad word?
And people have no support or understanding for the actual concepts behind it, the only thing people talk about is how the government isn't allowed to persecute you. But that's only a really small part of the general concept. Most people have no issue with violence against people they disagree with.

I think it's getting that way. Most younger people would say "hate speech isn't free speech"

Because (((they))) are afraid of truth.
Brazil has hate speech laws? I really don't believe that.
...and now you have jewish puppets. Nice work!

>I think it's getting that way. Most younger people would say "hate speech isn't free speech"

Bullshit. And even if that were true, the First Amendment is not subject to popular opinion or such an interpretation. "Hate speech isn't free speech" will always be confined to college safe spaces.

Tell it to Wikipedia:

>In May 2014, Russia's President Vladimir Putin signed a law making the denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two" or portraying Nazis as heroes a criminal offense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Inciting violence against people isn't covered under free speech laws and never has been.
Threats and declarations of violent intent are not "free speech".

I mean unless we're talking about a woman, LGBT individual or person of color threatening a white guy or calling for all whites to be killed. That doesn't technically qualify as "violent" or "threatening" though since violence and threats are an expression of power within the context of a patriarchal social hierarchal power structure.
I go to college so I know what I am talking about.
If you haven't read Blood germs and steel don't even try arguing with me I will report you to CSIS people go to jail for hate speech here you will be extradited to Canada to stand trial

Why are Americans such fucking terrible posters?

But "doesn't protect against consequences" is popular. There is no protection against violence from other entities than the government. Couldn't they easily get around this by making it legal for commoners to beat up people for doing hate speech? Then it wouldn't be the government doing it, while people still would get punished for hate speech

>In May 2014
Oh. Never heard it on news.

>"wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two"
So basically the USSR dindu nuffin or go to jail?

Actually, no. First off, it's 40%, the majority of Millennials still favor no limitations on free speech.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

Secondly, just because someone says they dislike "hate speech" doesn't mean they're actually in favor of amending the First Amendment, which is what it would take, since no local, state or federal law can override that.

Lastly, the "young Millennial support" for limiting free speech is mostly just young Latinos in California, and they simply do not, and never will, hold the political sway to change the Constitution, which requires two-thirds of the House and Senate, plus 75% of the states, to do. It's like we saw with the Electoral College, they're too relegated to just a handful of states, and no matter how much California may come to hate free speech, it's never going to convince 38 mostly white states to go along with it.

wrong, we have those laws

This thread is fucking embarrassing, why do I waste my youth with you retards

Ah, I remember now.

It was implemented after a liberal media made a poll about "should we have surrendered to Nazis to save million lives". Everyone went buttmad and some broadcasting companies broke a contract with them and deleted their channel from broadcasting and that media started whining that ebil government is censoring them and Russians are bydlo and don't understand their deep and smart ideas and all of that made shistorm even more stormy.

And before that, in May 2013 2ch was spamming russian internet with a bunch of pics and pastas "anime is better than veterans" and moralfags could not handle so much bad fat trolling so in May 2014 (9th May is a national holiday here) they invented the law to prevent new May shitstorms.

tl;dr it's not about holocaust.

what do you want people to even say ? we all know why things are like that, it's because of all the jews in government and business we went over this a thousand times already

Friendly reminder that there is absolutely nothing wrong with arresting Sup Forumstards and sentencing them to prison.

>liberals allying themselves with fascists
Like pottery.

fascist

t. Sup Forumstard on his way to prison

Liberals in Russia just love everyone who hates Russia

...

No one cares about your Sup Forums boogieman. Do you check under your bed each night for Sup Forums?

Amazing rebuttal!
A+ effort, friend!

Not surprising. Didn't they basically try to sell off the entire country in the 90's for a quick buck?

>1 point
>very obviously bait
>phoneposter filename
>r*ddit
You have to go back.

>No one cares about your Sup Forums boogieman.
Except for civilized countries :^)

>bait
>MUH JOOS
>wtf why dont you respond to my argument seriously!!

>Not surprising. Didn't they basically try to sell off the entire country in the 90's for a quick buck?
Yeah. Well self-hatred is an ancient Russian tradition so nothing new here

I don't want free-speech and I want people to have restricted liberties.
I don't like the American idea of having free speech, take Trump, he kept lying and lying, covering one lie with and other and medias just can't check fact everything, it's very easy to lie but difficult to check fact, politicians love to throw numbers when they claim smtg because they know journalists won't be able to fact check them live, other reason is simply that people who buy into trump don't listen to fact checking or are already too much into the "medias are telling fake news because they are biased" narrative.

Real debates where people change their mind are a meme. Most debates are people talking back and forth but nobody actually change their views because of a debate. Tolstoy shows it perfectly in Anna when he says that people's opinion change in them slowly and imperceptibly without themselves knowing and that debates are more or less a way to humiliate or to be humiliated by having "the best answers" in a back and forth argument. Studies have shown that if you don't allow a group to express themselves it doesn't make protestation stronger, the group split and the individuals become weaker. So I'm for splitting dangerous and not very interesting groups, it's especially good if it gives us more political stability. "but what will you do if they decide to censor X ?" it won't happen because I live in a democracy they can't take off liberties of a significant amount of ppl or they will never get re-elected, also we can't have far right because of they way our elections are designed.
Not to mention that from an intellectual point of view, giving freedom of speech to everything lowers the bar considerably.

The real problem with freedom of speech is the tyranny of majority. Everybody has to be PJ18, feminist, multiculturalist, but government isn't to blame for this except that politician encourage this but it's not their fault they have to get elected.

aie un (you)

How does a continent give a warning?

That headline is so fucking American

>Brazil has hate speech laws?
Yes.

It's about complying with local laws.
The reason why EU is dragged into this is because brings more weight to the table and the laws differ from state to state.
Big electronic companies want to operate with as little money spent moderating the content.

If you believe that media is incapable of bias, you're already incapable of further discussion--it would be like arguing with a retard.

Secondly, the debate format is awful. It's merely a dumbed down and digested form of argumentation designed to entertain constituents.

Real argumentation occurs in technical papers and studies. An offline format where unlimited research and citation can occur.

Your trust in the democratic process is so high as to be appalling. In democracy's first stages, it is seen as entirely unsurprising if the majority decides to ``democratically'' eliminate democracy, and proceed to some form of authoritarian rule.
Authoritarian figures don't care about democracy or re-election. As long as they can achieve their goals, they don't care about re-election. They can just get one of their lackeys elected and continue pushing indirectly. If you couldn't see this occurring in the 2008-2016 American elections, you are blind.

From an intellectual point of view, limiting discourse to a select few is simply oligarchy. Go to Russia if that's what you want.

Tyranny of the majority is an open problem with democracy, not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with democracy--as evidenced by every democratic country that is not the USA. Tyranny of the majority is however highly relevant to every democratic country.

If "everybody" has to conform to feminism and multiculturalism, then it is objectively not freedom of speech.

You are confused and do not understand what freedom of speech is.

It doesn't make sense because everyone is already a nigger here.

where do you see that I said media were incapable of bias ?
I never said media didn't have bias. They have, but way less than a trump supporter.

considering your first sentence, you seem incapable of reading properly, I'm waisting my time, you won

lmao your first paragraph could be easily reproduced by someone who drank so much Kool-Aid, that if someone saw you from behind, they would see a giant arm sticking out of your ass

You can only blame yourself for unintentionally looking like a massive fucking stooge, but the rest of your post also had the hallmarks of a massive fucking stooge, that I had no choice but to assume that you are a massive fucking stooge.

I made those when I was a kid to play with my brothers. Good times