Freedom of Speech, the License to Offend and Germany.

[Hakomar]

After watching a debate on the right to free speech and the license to offend, and reading that an Olympic athlete was banned for having a romantic involvement with a neo-nazi, I wonder what other people's thoughts were on firstly the premise of the debate, in as much as the right to free speech must include the license to offend, and whether Germany is then justified in its censorship.
A key point I would mention is that supression of certain topics doesn't eliminate discussion or propagation of it; the seemingly self-evident abhorrent nature of things will do far more. One may fear however, that Germany may become a resurgent 4th Reich, drang nach osten and whatever else. That's not my personal view however, but is Germany or any other government for that matter justified in restricting one's liberties to grant security?

[Vanoi]

Some people just don't realize that they do not have the right to not be offended.

[Hakomar]

Indeed; no one group should be elevated or placed lower than any other group when it comes to criticism. I do apologise that the video is quite long; but I am glued to the screen whenever Hitchens is on.

[Manco]

I'm fairly certain the national Olympic committees and the Olympic Games in general do not fall under the right to free speech.
You want to partake in them, you follow their rules. Simple as that.

[Hakomar]

There's nothing wrong with questioning their rules.

[Manco]

There's nothing wrong with questioning their rules.

Certainly not, but it's got nothing to do with freedom of speech. Unless of course you extend the discussion to anything being at least in part publicly funded should work with the same rules, but that's a different discussion.

The Olympic Games have always been a sporting event with political and ideological links, and that's why it's not "merely" a world or regional championship. These people have left, or have been forced to leave, because of their ideology or links to an ideology that's incompatible with the extremely well-known and publicised values of the Olympics.

I do agree with the general notion that you don't have a right not to be offended though. I'm just not certain this is the correct issue to address that with.

[Lazy]

You understood a few things wrong!
She was not banned for haveing a relationship with a Nazi!
She just left by herself after everyone knew she is a nazi-! She was not forced to leave by anyone!
She is not only just some nazi´s meat... she even quit her job as a police officer because of her right winged opinions.

In Germany there is freedom of speech!
One exeption:
What is not allowed is to deny the holocaust did happen! That means: you are not allowed to lie about history !

Most people do not understand the difference between beeing allowed to speak out loudly your opinion and inventing insulting crap!

Example: If you have a Hakenkreuz tattoo in some countries you are just an idiot using freedom of speech.
In Germany the judge would turn his brain on and say:
peoople only have tattoos they like and aprove => if you aprove this it means you think there was no murder => no murder = no holocaust => problems for you!

[Dr. Croccer]

Example: If you have a Hakenkreuz tattoo in some countries you are just an idiot using freedom of speech.
In Germany the judge would turn his brain on and say:
peoople only have tattoos they like and aprove => if you aprove this it means you think there was no murder => no murder = no holocaust => problems for you!

Gotta suck being a Hindu in Germany. Or a Celtic artist. Or just about anyone who just likes the symbol for aesthetic/spritual reasons before the Nazis came and ruined it, like they did with so many symbols.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So let's just deny a huge number of people their cultural symbols because some other people might act retarded over it.

The sooner Germany and the world in general gets over this crap, the better.

http://reclaimtheswastika.com/

[Hakomar]

Indeed, if you break the rules you should expect the punishment. Rather simply, and perhaps I should have stressed this, the discussion prompted me to think about the issue I have posited in the original post, and that is the only real relevance.

Being able to deny the holocaust is what should be allowed by free speech. Never mind how hurtful or incorrect it is.

[Lazy]

From Wikipedia but it should be common knowledge:

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas....

There is a difference between opinion and a insult or some invented "facts"/ lies!
If you think there was no holocaust ( not exactly you... you know what I mean ) you should read a history book or finish elementary school!
That´s why deniing the holocaust cannot be an opinion due to its definition!

PS: The reason why deniing it is illegal is the state wants people not to forget!

[Vanoi]

From Wikipedia but it should be common knowledge:

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas....

There is a difference between opinion and a insult or some invented "facts"/ lies!

If you think there was no holocaust ( not exactly you... you know what I mean ) you should read a history book or finish elementary school!

That´s why deniing the holocaust cannot be an opinion due to its definition!

This is what I'm talking about. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Even if its one you don't like. There shouldn't be laws against Holocaust denial. Its completely stupid.

[mishkin]

There shouldn't be laws against Holocaust denial. Its completely stupid.

and against trying to spread "dangerous" lies?

[Vanoi]

and against trying to spread "dangerous" lies?

The lies aren't dangerous. Denying the Holocaust isn't killing or hurting anyone.

In any case, there is no such thing as universal freedom of speech anywhere. And this includes marry old USA.

Yes, but the only things that can actually land you in jail are threats. Even things like slander or libel can only get you sued. Not arrested.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The lies aren't dangerous. Denying the Holocaust isn't killing or hurting anyone.



Yes, but the only things that can actually land you in jail are threats. Even things like slander or libel can only get you sued. Not arrested.

what if a large angry protest rally had gathered outside the house of a released murderer and someone gave a speech saying what a terrible person he was and he deserves to die (without specifically saying anyone present should do it), and the mob, overcome by anger, breaks into the murderer's house and kill him? Obviously the mob are all responsible for their actions, but should the speaker also be held accountable for some of the blame?

I used the believe people should be allowed to do anything they want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. Then I realized that most actions a person takes interfere indirectly with other people's opportunities, and much of our world is a zero-sum game, so drawing the line between "directly" and "indirectly" interfering with someone else's freedom is impossible.

[athanaric]

Freedom of Speech is absolutely necessary, as are the license to offend, and Germany.

and against trying to spread "dangerous" lies?

That's a good question. There is a huge problem with people/ideologies trying to spread distorted views on history or simply blatant lies (usually in order to better "legitimize" their state, religion, social order, or ideology). But I think it's ultimately a bad idea to enforce the scientifically accurate view(s) on history, evolution, "gender", or other "hot" topics. Maybe it's better to weaken religious nuts and other fanatics by making fun of them (that's what we need freedom of speech for). I don't have a definitive answer on this, though.

[Thorn777]

Not "completely". There is certainly merits to it, even if you way other aspects more heavily.

In any case, there is no such thing as universal freedom of speech anywhere. And this includes marry old USA.

[Hakomar]

There are some very sincere holocaust deniers out there who do not think they are lying. Just because you (and I to that extent) think that their argument is incorrect and their viewpoint invalid, it is still an opinion, no matter how great the delusion.
Denying the holocaust ever happened is not an insult; although some may feel insulted by the denial of it. It is rather simply a statement of belief. Just because the implications of the denial, or the denial itself is hurtful, that does not invalidate it from being an opinion. I might sincerely doubt that 2+2 = 4, for whatever reason, but you wouldn't censor me. You might however, stop me from teaching it at schools in an uncritical fashion, but that is a different topic. Why censor someone because they are wrong?

[Facupay]

The only way freedom of speech can be restricted is through laws to maintain public order. I belive that stating your opinion, no matter how stupid it may be, cannot be illegal if it doesen't clearly affects public order.

Saying "the holocaust didn't happen" may be wrong but it's an opinion, some people might feel offended about it but they'll have to deal with it. What's the difference with saying "Alexander the great didn't conquer Persia"? I dunno, some greeks might feel offended or something but what are you going to do? jail the guy who said that?.

However, saying "the holocaust didn't happen, let's kill all the jews" is completely different thing, it clearly incites violence and I agree it should be subject to censorship to preserve public order and to avoid violence or conflict.

What "public order" means might be debatable but I think there is at least a general idea about what things are detrimental to it.

[Hakomar]

However, saying "the holocaust didn't happen, let's kill all the jews" is completely different thing, it clearly incites violence and I agree it should be subject to censorship to preserve public order and to avoid violence or conflict.

What "public order" means might be debatable but I think there is at least a general idea about what things are detrimental to it.

I entirely agree with you Facupay - inciting violence or crime should remain illegal.

On an unrelated topic to the quote - I assume the censorship laws are a relic from WW2 when the allies were trying to de-nazify Germany.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

I believe the moment one decides to support an opinion that would advocate the removal of rights from a specific group, then they should not be able to hide behind those same rights. One that would take away freedom of speech from a specific race, religion, or otherwise do not deserve those rights themselves, thus neo-nazis deserve no mercy or rights.

I'd even go a step further and say they deserve to be treated the way they want to treat others, and should be gassed.