Germany's flashmob neo-Nazis

[das_nut]

Actually, these kind of men (and women) are centre stage and run the world and have most of the wealth. Increased freedoms (ie economic deregulation) led to them becoming even more monstrous. And freedom is like money- it is a commodity. And also like money, the greatest freedoms percolate to those in society who have the most status and power and deprive those at the bottom.

So it is silly to imply that "freedom" will somehow protect vulnerable and poor people and stop malicious groups from victimising those who cant defend themselves.

It seems to be ok to protect the interests of those who wish to spew their hatred everywhere and picket funerals and create situations where it is intimidating for ethnic minorities to walk their streets, but noone ever mentions the "freedoms" of those at the bottom of the heap,

because they are not seen to have earned that freedom. Well to me unequal freedoms are not freedoms at all.

McLibel. Google it.

Now, tell me, if you are going to give the government the power to limit free speech, what makes you think that powerful business interests in the US wouldn't do the same thing?

In your brave new world, those with the least amount of political influence (the poor, the disadvantaged) be the first ones slapped down when they say something unpopular. It isn't going to be the rich and powerful who get penalized for saying stuff. Instead, it will be the poor community accusing a factory of poisoning the ground water, or the minority neighborhood that criticizes the policing in its community.

 

[mlp]

The McLibel case is a civil case that has zilch to do with making hate speech and/or the outlawing of the Nazi party illegal.

Lay people tend to confabulate civil law and criminal law, although the two are quite different.

 

[das_nut]

The McLibel case is a civil case that has zilch to do with making hate speech and/or the outlawing of the Nazi party illegal.

It was a civil case, but ultimately hinged on the matter of free expression. Hence, the European Court of Human Rights found the UK government guilty, and ordered the UK government to pay the defendants damages.

 

[Freesia]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/06/far-right-rise-europe-report

 

[Freesia]

http://www.economist.com/node/21560294

 

[das_nut]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/06/far-right-rise-europe-report

"Parties touting anti-immigrant and Islamophobic ideas have spread beyond established strongholds in France, Italy and Austria to the traditionally liberal Netherlands and Scandinavia, and now have significant parliamentary blocs in eight countries."

• France - Prohibits hate speech.
• Italy - ???
• Austria - Prohibits hate speech.
• Netherlands - Prohibits hate speech.
• Sweden - Prohibits hate speech.
• Norway - Prohibits hate speech.
• Finland - Prohibits hate speech.
• Denmark - Prohibits hate speech.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560294

• Greece - ???

- Source

So tell me, how are these laws against hate speech working out?

 

[mlp]

It was a civil case, but ultimately hinged on the matter of free expression. Hence, the European Court of Human Rights found the UK government guilty, and ordered the UK government to pay the defendants damages.

No.

It was a civil case brought by McDonald's against four individuals for libel. Under English law (and English civil law is case law, just like U.S. civil law; IOW, English civil law has been developed by generation after generation of judicial decisions, and is not codified), the burden of proof in a case of libel is placed upon the defendant - the defendant must prove the truth of each of his statements in order to prevail in the lawsuit. In contrast, in the U.S. the general rule is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made the statement(s) knowing that they were false, or should reasonably have known that they were false. (There are permutations on this, depending on the state.)

The case dragged on for a decade - McDonald's did what big companies/those with deep pockets do in litigation, namely made the case as expensive and burdensome as possible for the other side. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed on some counts and failed to prevailon others.

The two defendants took the case the the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the English legal system had not granted them a fair trial - whether that was based on the standard of proof required for defendants to prevail in libel actions under English law, or whether it was because the system failed to redress the inequality in resources that the two sides could bring to bear in a lawsuit, or some combination of those factors, I don't recall. But it had sh*t all to do with freedom of expression.

 

[mlp]

"Parties touting anti-immigrant and Islamophobic ideas have spread beyond established strongholds in France, Italy and Austria to the traditionally liberal Netherlands and Scandinavia, and now have significant parliamentary blocs in eight countries."

• France - Prohibits hate speech.
• Italy - ???
• Austria - Prohibits hate speech.
• Netherlands - Prohibits hate speech.
• Sweden - Prohibits hate speech.
• Norway - Prohibits hate speech.
• Finland - Prohibits hate speech.
• Denmark - Prohibits hate speech.

• Greece - ???

- Source


So tell me, how are these laws against hate speech working out?

Well, if they're not stifling freedom of expression, then what exactly are you up in arms about?

 

[das_nut]

It was a civil case brought by McDonald's against four individuals for libel. Under English law (and English civil law is case law, just like U.S. civil law; IOW, English civil law has been developed by generation after generation of judicial decisions, and is not codified)

Civil law can or cannot be codified.

You appear to be confusing civil law with common law. There's a difference. Common law is based on judicial decisions. Civil law may or may not be based the same as common law, depending on the circumstances.

The two defendants took the case the the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the English legal system had not granted them a fair trial - whether that was based on the standard of proof required for defendants to prevail in libel actions under English law, or whether it was because the system failed to redress the inequality in resources that the two sides could bring to bear in a lawsuit, or some combination of those factors, I don't recall. But it had sh*t all to do with freedom of expression.

Well, here's the decision.

I will quote (pg 28 - 29):

The applicants also complained of a breach of Article 10 of the​

Convention, which provides:​

​

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include​

freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without​

interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ...​

​

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,​

may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are​

prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of​

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or​

crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or​

rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or​

for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” ​

​

So it does appear that the defendants in the McLibel case did raise the freedom of expression clause.

How did the court find? Well, on page 32:

[...] the Court does not consider that the correct​

balance was struck between the need to protect the applicants' rights to​

freedom of expression and the need to protect McDonald's rights and​

reputation. The more general interest in promoting the free circulation of​

information and ideas about the activities of powerful commercial entities,​

and the possible “chilling” effect on others are also important factors to be​

considered in this context, bearing in mind the legitimate and important role​

that campaign groups can play in stimulating public discussion (see, for​

example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103,​

§ 44, Bladet Tromsø § 64, Thorgeir Thorgeirson § 68). The lack of​

procedural fairness and equality therefore gave rise to a breach of Article 10​

in the present case. ​

​

That's the decision. Sounds to me that the findings included the need for freedom of expression.

Well, if they're not stifling freedom of expression, then what exactly are you up in arms about?

Europe has had restrictions on free speech within living memory that have harmed freedom.

I'm not sure you can really point to a few recent decades and say "see, everything is fine".

 

[Freesia]

"Parties touting anti-immigrant and Islamophobic ideas have spread beyond established strongholds in France, Italy and Austria to the traditionally liberal Netherlands and Scandinavia, and now have significant parliamentary blocs in eight countries."

• France - Prohibits hate speech.
• Italy - ???
• Austria - Prohibits hate speech.
• Netherlands - Prohibits hate speech.
• Sweden - Prohibits hate speech.
• Norway - Prohibits hate speech.
• Finland - Prohibits hate speech.
• Denmark - Prohibits hate speech.

• Greece - ???

- Source

The point I am trying to make is that it is not only a problem of those people in the video. It seems to be happening around Europe, and this kind of thing is worse during bad economic times, similar to when Germany had their economic crisis and then began persecuting Jewish people. So you dont seem to take any of this very seriously or think anything should be done about it , because for some weird reason you keep hyperfocusing on thoughts about free speech, when what is happening has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[mlp]

Civil law can or cannot be codified.

You appear to be confusing civil law with common law. There's a difference. Common law is based on judicial decisions. Civil law may or may not be based the same as common law, depending on the circumstances.



Well, here's the decision.

I will quote (pg 28 - 29):

The applicants also complained of a breach of Article 10 of the​

Convention, which provides:​

​

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include​

freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without​

interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ...​

​

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,​

may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are​

prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of​

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or​

crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or​

rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or​

for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” ​

​

So it does appear that the defendants in the McLibel case did raise the freedom of expression clause.

How did the court find? Well, on page 32:

[...] the Court does not consider that the correct​

balance was struck between the need to protect the applicants' rights to​

freedom of expression and the need to protect McDonald's rights and​

reputation. The more general interest in promoting the free circulation of​

information and ideas about the activities of powerful commercial entities,​

and the possible “chilling” effect on others are also important factors to be​

considered in this context, bearing in mind the legitimate and important role​

that campaign groups can play in stimulating public discussion (see, for​

example, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103,​

§ 44, Bladet Tromsø § 64, Thorgeir Thorgeirson § 68). The lack of​

procedural fairness and equality therefore gave rise to a breach of Article 10​

in the present case. ​

​

That's the decision. Sounds to me that the findings included the need for freedom of expression.


Europe has had restrictions on free speech within living memory that have harmed freedom.

I'm not sure you can really point to a few recent decades and say "see, everything is fine".

I have taken the liberty of bolding the actual conclusions, rather than the the preambles to them on which you so conveniently focused. And again, this case dealt with McDonald's commercial interests balanced against the defendants' ability to prove that every statement they made was absolutely true. Quite a different kettle of fish than hate speech laws designed to protect the lives of targeted groups, wouldn't you say?

Also, with respect to codification of civil law - please note that in my posts, I clearly stated that English and U.S. civil law is based on precedent established by prior cases. We are/were discussing an English case, after all. Of course civil law can be and is codified in many places, including in most of the countries on the continent of Europe, but the McLibel case took place in GB which is why jurisdictions in which civil law is codified is not relevant other than to establish that you have in fact read some Wiki articles and therfore perceive yourself to be a legal scholar.

And you still have not made any point that links England's rather weird libel case law with the evils of outlawing hate speech. Tell me, has the European Court on human rights made any finding about how unconscionable Germany's laws outlawing National Socialism and everything that goes along with it?

How many lives are you personally willing to sacrifice in order to protect hate speech and political parties that promote genocide? Apparently, six million or so aren't enough.

 

[das_nut]

I have taken the liberty of bolding the actual conclusions, rather than the the preambles to them on which you so conveniently focused. And again, this case dealt with McDonald's commercial interests balanced against the defendants' ability to prove that every statement they made was absolutely true. Quite a different kettle of fish than hate speech laws designed to protect the lives of targeted groups, wouldn't you say?

Not really. When individual rights are attacked, there tends to be some sort of rationalization going on - it's to protect us against racists, or obscenity, or communists, or drugs, or terrorists.

Yet it is common that such laws are eventually used to attack the rights of individuals who say unpopular things, or who pose a threat to governments or powerful interests.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not only a problem of those people in the video. It seems to be happening around Europe, and this kind of thing is worse during bad economic times, similar to when Germany had their economic crisis and then began persecuting Jewish people. So you dont seem to take any of this very seriously or think anything should be done about it , because for some weird reason you keep hyperfocusing on thoughts about free speech, when what is happening has absolutely nothing to do with it.

There's a difference between not taking an issue seriously, and advocating that we strip rights from everyone to try to prevent an issue.

 

[mlp]

Not really. When individual rights are attacked, there tends to be some sort of rationalization going on - it's to protect us against racists, or obscenity, or communists, or drugs, or terrorists.

Yet it is common that such laws are eventually used to attack the rights of individuals who say unpopular things, or who pose a threat to governments or powerful interests.



There's a difference between not taking an issue seriously, and advocating that we strip rights from everyone to try to prevent an issue.

You do realize that every law "attacks individual rights" of someone, don't you?

 

[das_nut]

You do realize that every law "attacks individual rights" of someone, don't you?

Only if your definition of "rights" is so broad to be effectively meaningless.

 

[mlp]

Only if your definition of "rights" is so broad to be effectively meaningless.

No. Every law balances an individual's rights against the interests of other individuals or of society as a whole.

Also, your whole argument of "if we don't allow neo Nazis to express themselves about their desire to wipe black people, Jews, etc. off the face of the earth, then the next thing you know, people will be prohibited from expressing their political opinions" has just as much merit as the very similar claim of "if we allow two men or two women to marry, then the next thing you know, people will be allowed to marry dogs."

 

[das_nut]

No. Every law balances an individual's rights against the interests of other individuals or of society as a whole.

Last time I checked, "murder" isn't considered a fundamental human right, and thus the crime of murder is not infringing on individual rights.

Also, your whole argument of "if we don't allow neo Nazis to express themselves about their desire to wipe black people, Jews, etc. off the face of the earth, then the next thing you know, people will be prohibited from expressing their political opinions" has just as much merit as the very similar claim of "if we allow two men or two women to marry, then the next thing you know, people will be allowed to marry dogs."

Says the woman who has expressed her desire that people should be shot. The same woman who appears to agree with a philosophy that has been associated with acts of terrorism.

 

[das_nut]

I don't usually agree with you das_nut, but I do in this. People can't start stripping the right to free speech from groups who have things to say that they don't like. Once you set that precedent, who's next on the list? AR advocates are already close to being classed as domestic terrorists, if they aren't already.

Aye.

Once these people have their right of free speech taken away and get driven underground they will become that much more dangerous, in my estimation. Better to have it out in the open where it can be fought with discourse, not gagging. Shutting people up doesn't make them change their minds. It just makes them feel even more convinced that they are right, and more likely to act out in ways much worse than marching around at night wearing masks and chanting.

Yep. Keep the rot in the open, where we can see it, instead of hidden, where it can grow undetected.

 

[mlp]

Last time I checked, "murder" isn't considered a fundamental human right, and thus the crime of murder is not infringing on individual rights.

Well, depending on my personal proclivities and/or upon how obnoxious my neighbor is, denying me the right to shoot my neighbor infringes upon my liberty and/or upon my pursuit of happiness, both of which were considered fundamental rights by the Founding Fathers.

Says the woman who has expressed her desire that people should be shot. The same woman who appears to agree with a philosophy that has been associated with acts of terrorism.

1. What does any of that have to do with the comment to which you are supposedly responding?

2. My philosophy concerning animal rights is my own. I have never managed to make it through the works of any animal rights "thinker" because the ones I've tried to read have their heads about as far up their butts (in my personal opinion) as most philosophers do. So you would have a pretty difficult time painting me as an adherent of any philosophy other than my own personal one.

 

[das_nut]

Well, depending on my personal proclivities and/or upon how obnoxious my neighbor is, denying me the right to shoot my neighbor infringes upon my liberty and/or upon my pursuit of happiness, both of which were considered fundamental rights by the Founding Fathers.

To proclaim that your rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness means you can do anything you is a definition of rights so broad that it is obviously unworkable.

1. What does any of that have to do with the comment to which you are supposedly responding?

I'm pointing out that you have expressed a preference for certain people to be killed based on their attitude towards animal rights - a philosophy shared by those who have engaged in terrorism, including arson and bombings targetting human beings.

It would be very easy to define your statement as hate speech.

 

[mlp]

To proclaim that your rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness means you can do anything you is a definition of rights so broad that it is obviously unworkable.

No. It just supports my contention that every law is a balance between one individual's rights and interests versus the rights and interests of other individuals and/or society as a whole. You can argue about the "workability" of it all you want in an effort to avoid acknowledging that basic fact, but that basic fact remains.

I'm pointing out that you have expressed a preference for certain people to be killed based on their attitude towards animal rights - a philosophy shared by those who have engaged in terrorism, including arson and bombings targetting human beings.

It would be very easy to define your statement as hate speech.

Oh really? Saying that I have no objection to a law enacted by a democracy, a law which targets criminal behavior, is hate speech? I guess voicing support for the death penalty for murder is also hate speech by your definition.