Do Europeans have free speech?

Do Europeans have free speech?

Attached: 1448086876847.jpg (613x617, 52K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BPCwOEDkbwg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

sorry, I'm not allowed to tell you

no, but Canada doesn't either.

Attached: video2.webm (320x240, 725K)

The idea of any well developed country nit having it really shocks me

Attached: 1A0BDED2-014F-4FC3-AE6F-E9C6FAC7B5B2.gif (245x245, 991K)

called my teacher a nigger and didnt get detention.
so, yes.

>be developed country
>have free speech
>think 20 minutes before posting a tweet in order to not get jailed for it

Yes. In moderation. We don't worship it as the #1 purpose of human existence, we see it's value and usefulness and ensure it is a right we are guaranteed. Anglos in the new world could learn this lesson well.

That's why I'm asking

Nice. The ability to say what you want, in moderation. lmao

>fighting games

So you have free speech, as long as the people in power approve of what youre saying? very cool and reasonable approach :)

>have free speech
>use it to incite violence and propagate infringing on other peoples' rights
>cry about getting your free speech limited

Attached: 1503184140866.jpg (720x405, 58K)

>We have to preemptively stop people from speaking before they cause problems with speaking, stop crying about it

Attached: 1460082217615.png (900x900, 17K)

Not the people in power. The People.

Mate, the last time we had unlimited free speech we started a world war and genocided millions. The minor limitations we have are in place out of historical experience, not blind authoritarianism. Why would you want to call for a race war anyway? How is that beneficial to society? You want us to be neck deep in sociopolitical trench wars like the Americans are now?

>If your speech is unpopular with the majority, you should suffer the consequences
>We have free speech though
This isn't funny anymore lads

Attached: 1440483419132.jpg (545x363, 146K)

I think you should deal with criminal acts when they arise, not squash freedom of speech because "last time we had free speech people chose wrong". I think not being locked up for freedom of expression is a clear benefit to society. America has it right.

Excellent bait my friend

>

Attached: 1512651098451[1].png (485x443, 31K)

Free speech not including calls for violence against social groups is just as natural as gun rights not including tanks or freedom of religion not including terrorist sects. What kinda rock have you been smoking to think that all these things should be unrestricted?

>hurr there's nothing wrong with people owning war machinery, you can deal with it once they blow up elementary schools

It works a bit the opposite way as in America here.

>say terrible things
>no social consequences

>but a lot of things are illegal and can get you fined

So speaking your mind is the same thing as owning a tank? The Stassi would be proud

If your mind consists of race wars you're deranged and belong in an institution anyway.

You mean an officers training camp?

Why is Germany always so Nazi?

Ah there it is. The typical German authoritarian soul on full display.

>punishing people for calling for violent conflict is more damaging to society than actual violent conflict
>t. tim I WISH I WERE A BURGER horton

Attached: 1507053950165.jpg (645x773, 56K)

This is the English version of a campaign spot that's now running on Dutch state television. Because next week are local elections in all cities.

youtube.com/watch?v=BPCwOEDkbwg

Give an example on the limit of free speech.

Our limit?

>We're not Nazis but we have to preemptively stop all unauthorized speech or people could become Nazis
t. Hans ibn rasheed ibn Merkel Hitler

Attached: brainles.jpg (588x823, 109K)

That depends completely upon the nation. Europe isn't a country.

Your personal limit, you keep calling the leaf retarded but use extreme examples of nazis. So I want to know what you mean, because to some people inciting violence means more than kill x group or hurt x group.

It's not?

Attached: couldn't be.jpg (641x530, 25K)

We've trained you well, leaf

There's nothing wrong with moderating free speech... like some other Holy Cows enshrined in the US Constitution, free speech is socially toxic when taken to extremes. Unfettered freedom of speech leads to abominations like the Westboro Baptist Church and Sup Forums.

I know you're joking, but asking if Europeans have free speech is such a general question it doesn't even make sense. The politics in Norway are completely different from those of France for instance, and I know nothing of their customs. I went to Poland last summer and there were a lot of both political and cultural misunderstandings because of how different our nations are. Europe is not an entity.

Who makes the rules on what is or isn't fine?

Personally I have thick skin and am able to uphold my views despite being surrounded by fringe opinions, otherwise I wouldn't have visited this website for the last ten years. But this careful evaluation of expression isn't present in all of society, and people are easily drawn in by simple albeit hazardous paroles. I mean, just look at how charged with half truths and slurs the last presidential race in the US has been, and way too many people were into it head over heels and only questioned things by who said them, not by what was said.

no bcuz le ebil merkel doesn't let you say bad things about Jamal the kebab guy who stole my job and my wife
t. Hans Georg Spritzesprötze

The general public by appointing representatives who in turn are responsible for legislation in everyone's interest and who are kept in check by independently appointed courts. Or are you telling me that parliamentary democracy and checks and balances don't work?

I'm glad we're following Europes example and removing such vestigial and old fashioned concepts like Free speech. Now, we just have to emulate them more and get rid of our guns. No tyrannical regime could ever rise again, and it's not like we need to defend ourselves anyways. Having freedom of speech and the means to defend yourself is literally being a serf for authoritarianism.

>he general public by appointing representatives who in turn are responsible for legislation in everyone's interest
But I thought you said that was bad when people rallied behind Nazis? That's why you're in favour of limiting freedom of speech?

We have pretty much the same gun ownership rate as you do, you mouth breathing fucking retard. I'm done with your uninformed, ignorant bullshit.

Don't gass me please

Attached: 1440887450062.jpg (600x656, 51K)

Of course but if you abuse the rights and privileges enshrined in by our free and democratic constitutional order with the goal to abolish said order then you are effectively forfeiting these rights.

The rights and freedoms laid out in any democratic constitutional framework don't exist in a vacuum or in any absolute sense. Whenever different freedoms and rights clash a balance has to be found. A modern republic has to be steeled against its enemies and possess the tools defend itself.

Our politicians generally favour more freedom of speech.
Except one minister who - you guessed it - is born in sweden.

>Of course we have freedom of speech but dissent to the established order forfeits your rights to speak freely. Your rights are privileges and don't exist in any absolute sense meaning they are not protected and they never really exited in the first place. We have free speech though senpai.

5D mental gymnastics

Attached: 1503606322975.png (496x390, 33K)

I thought one of the great things about living in Europe is that laws change. Unlike in America.

You are using hyperbole with implicating me of saying democracy doesn't work and you know it's not that simple. Appointed and elected officials do not always do what the "general public" wants and parliamentary systems also have people elect the party and not heads of states, yes parties may have leaders but you are limited to that leader of that party. There isn't as much input on what people choose as their prime minister. A majority of European nations use parliamentary systems, so their choice of heads of state are limited. So does the general public really have a choice in what is or isn't fine?

I like the Netherlands. Fucking Sw*des will pay. The German would arrest me for saying this.

Of course laws change here, you don't see any slaves anymore, do you?

I mean, not unwilling black ones. Voluntary mexicans are another matter entirely and are neither here nor there.

Pretty much. You don't get to enjoy the rights and freedoms you want to abolish.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie

You only had to fight a civil war over it.

My point stands. The law changed

Does anyone have the right to real free speech?

One of the best things about living in Europe is that most of the right-wing rhetoric you hear in America is very much
against the law here. Calling Islam "uncivilised" or saying that gay marriage isn't really marriage would get you
charged with inciting hatred. Suggesting that people should buy guns "for self-defence" would be considered inciting
violence, which carries serious penalties as well. We're also ?nally starting to seriously crack down on climate change
deniers and anti-vaxxers and many European countries have laws that prohibit insulting or offending people in
general. Germany has a law against disparaging the memory of deceased persons, so the crude "ding dong, the witch
is dead" rhetoric coming from the US when a celebrity dies would be very much illegal. Childish name-calling and lying
about people is not allowed here either, as a woman in France was recently given defamation charges for commenting
"she's a liar" on a YouTube video of a politician giving a speech.

Is our freedom of expression limited? Not in the least. We are guaranteed freedom of expression through European
law. Rather than restricting freedom of expression, these laws simply ensure that it's used responsibly and for the
purposes of good. Unlike Americans, we understand that human rights and human dignity also need to be respected.
Americans stubbornly cling to their outdated interpretation of their archaic Constitution while the rest of the world
forges ahead. You Americans look very uncivilised to the rest of us when you allow bigots to speak out openly. By
allowing hate speech, you are sending the message to the rest of the world that your government approves of hatred
and intolerance. Is that really what you want, Americans?

>You enjoy rights unless you want to abolish them, but we have already abolished them in case you're a loud mouth

Damn Germany. That's hardcore.

Attached: 1448042870039.jpg (441x442, 49K)

Great pasta I remember that picture

If they're unhappy they just elect someone else the next time. That's why the greatest threat to democracy aren't politicians; it's lazy, ignorant or badly informed voters, or those uninterested in any democratic participation to begin with. I'm not in favor of compulsory voting, but the lower the voter turnout, the more crapped up politics usually become. People need to maintain interest.

kek

Attached: 666.gif (425x481, 1.51M)

Characteristics of voters doesn't and shouldn't matter. I know you're not saying that it is a requirement but is a problem. To add requirements based on a subjective point of view is a bad idea, such as limiting speech on subjective grounds. Let's say a majority of people think that there should be a subjective requirements to vote then eliminates their right to vote, next they vote to outlaw speech criticizing such a law so they can't even bring it to court. That's why applying subjective limits is not appreciated here. It's trying to stop tyranny just as you're reason for trying to prevent nazis. The path to evil is paved with good intentions.

Europeans don't like free speech because they're used to being serfs for hundreds of years. They've been domesticated by big brother.

There's a difference between
>telling people that should be hated
and
>telling people to kill
First one is free speech and doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights.
The second one does infringe on their rights to be safe, which is why it's a crime.

I'm surprised most Euros don't get this.

The wogs?

>this thread

Attached: (m=eaf8Ggaaaa)(mh=WpyhTWjeZ17xUBVm)7.jpg (320x240, 21K)

>as long as the majority approves of it, you have free speech
So what happens when Muslims become the majority and decide that non-Islamic religions, atheism, secularism, etc are no longer approved?

>>telling people to kill
>First one is free speech and doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights.
>The second one does infringe on their rights to be safe, which is why it's a crime.

>because X says so Y shoud kill
GAY FUCKING ARGUMENT THERE MATE

No.

The Westboro baptist church isn't bad at all. They just protest gays aggressively using offensive language. Communism should be banned though along with atheism because they are abominable.

They do not. Basic human rights are anathema to the European's authoritarian soul.

I would rather have the freedom of virtual Cheese Pizza over free speech, but we have neither anyway.

It's the difference between "God hates Jews" (fine) and "kill the jews" (inciting violence, a crime)

>Communism should be banned though along with atheism because they are abominable.
braise jebus gawd bles yall

Attached: 1448109232021.png (431x600, 12K)

Ja herr Merkel, ban ze Nazis but ze Communism iz gud ja

Attached: 2.jpg (449x449, 37K)

Was referring to the atheism part actually. The most religious parts of Murrika and in fact the world are the least developed.

Um, do you want to go to Jail?