Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 04:46
    Sweden is like this cartoon state when it comes to things like political correct culture. It's like the San Francisco of Europe.

    But it is great -- it really can help us by letting everyone know what is in the works for everyone else.

    Check out what online speech means to the Swedish government:

    The Swedish government is planning to put more pressure on tech giants Google, Facebook, and Twitter to end anonymity for ‘online trolls’ and those accused of posting hate speech.
    Minister for Housing and Digitisation Peter Eriksson said that he and Justice Minister Morgan Johansson were working together to put even more pressure on the social media companies to deal with so-called hate speech online, Expressen reports.



    “So far, it has been too easy to be able to say anything on the internet,” Eriksson said and added that individuals should be held responsible for what they say.

    “The troll accounts that exist today – as well as in Sweden – must end. You have to point out to the big platforms and tell them you have a responsibility, you have to clean up and get rid of this,” he added.
    ...
    By the group’s own admission, many of those they report to police are elderly women. One woman, a 65-year-old named Christina, was taken to court after she claimed on Facebook that mass Muslim migration would lower the general IQ of the country.

    She later described intense harassment from Swedish police which produced 150 pages of material, much of which had been gathered by Näthatsgranskaren.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/28/swedish-government-pushes-end-anonymity-social-media/

    Maybe for a lot of people the story of Lauren Southern isn't very persuasive.

    But this is becomign the norm throughout Europe and, judging by the atmosphere on US campuses, they will push hard to normalize this in America.

    Do you think Sweden is setting a bad precedent for liberty in Europe and on the internet?
  2. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1406
    29 Mar '18 05:00
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Sweden is like this cartoon state when it comes to things like political correct culture. It's like the San Francisco of Europe.

    But it is great -- it really can help us by letting everyone know what is in the works for everyone else.

    Check out what online speech means to the Swedish government:

    [quote]The Swedish government is planning to put ...[text shortened]... a.

    Do you think Sweden is setting a bad precedent for liberty in Europe and on the internet?
    I wouldn't worry about Sweden's precedents if I were you. The Swedes enjoy better education, healthcare, employment opportunities and quality of life than the average American.
  3. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 05:51
    Originally posted by @mchill
    I wouldn't worry about Sweden's precedents if I were you. The Swedes enjoy better education, healthcare, employment opportunities and quality of life than the average American.
    Non-sequitor.

    A place can be wealthy but still be ignorant.

    A place can also be doing good in several areas and bad in another.

    Moreover, there's no link between a society's level of prosperity and its freedom, liberty, or respect for democracy.

    ... But I do not suspect that you were even trying to be right, lol.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    29 Mar '18 06:39
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    But this is becomign the norm throughout Europe
    What is?
  5. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 06:54
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    What is?
    Targeting political dissidents and threatening them with fines and even jail time.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    29 Mar '18 07:07
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Targeting political dissidents and threatening them with fines and even jail time.
    Lauren Southern wasn't threatened with fines or jail time.
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 07:09
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Lauren Southern wasn't threatened with fines or jail time.
    That's right: she was outright banned. It is other people in Britain that have been targeted with these kinds of things.

    See Meechan.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

    The great irony here is that he did it purely for the laughs and yet they are seriously going through with this.

    Clown world.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    29 Mar '18 07:11
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    That's right: she was outright banned. It is other people in Britain that have been targeted with these kinds of things.

    See Meechan.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

    The great irony here is that he did it purely for the laughs and yet they are seriously going through with this.

    Clown world.
    You know why she was banned and it wasn't for mere speech or ideas so it would be nice if you stopped dishonestly pretending it was.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    29 Mar '18 07:20
    Are you also concerned with the laws in some Euro countries banning burkas and/or burkinas?
  10. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 07:44
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You know why she was banned and it wasn't for mere speech or ideas so it would be nice if you stopped dishonestly pretending it was.
    Did she threaten to go and punch Muslims? No, not at all. She was going to publicly proclaim that Allah is gay or trans, etc.

    The government in the UK knew this would result in Muslims attacking people for the perceived insults.

    Thus, she was banned for life.

    This is what is known as a Heckler's veto:

    In the free speech context, a heckler's veto is either of two situations in which a person who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced.

    In the strict legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs when the speaker's right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration. The term was coined by University of Chicago professor of law Harry Kalven.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

    Is that accurate enough?

    In America, we decided that no one can lose their right to free speech because another person threatens violence.

    In the United States, case law regarding the heckler's veto is mixed. [2] Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.

    The best known case involving the heckler's veto is probably Feiner v. New York, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1951. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, writing for the majority, held that police officers acted within their power in arresting a speaker if the arrest was "motivated solely by a proper concern for the preservation of order and protection of the general welfare". 340 U.S. 315.

    In Gregory v. Chicago (1969), Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion, argued that arresting demonstrators as a consequence of unruly behavior of by-standers would amount to a heckler's veto.[3]

    It was rejected in Hill v. Colorado (2000),[4] where the Supreme Court rejected the "Heckler's Veto," finding "governmental grants of power to private actors" to be "constitutionally problematic" in cases where "the regulations allowed a single, private actor to unilaterally silence a speaker".[5]


    You knew that already, I am sure, and even though it is dobtful you are some Constitutional law expert, you have probably heard of this. I learned about it in the 8th grade I believe.
  11. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 07:45
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Are you also concerned with the laws in some Euro countries banning burkas and/or burkinas?
    Yes, I thought that the law in France which forced people to wear Westernized swim wear was utterly ridiculous. You should be able to swim in the clothing that you want.

    I understand that a burka should be banned in certain circumstances, though, e.g., people who are amassed in protest and the likes are not allowed to wear masks. It would also make sense that police can demand at any time to see the face of the person wearing it.

    Burkas are not o fmy culture at all but I see no reason why you would legislate against someone choosing to go about in public that way. It is absurd.

    It has only become this weird outlet where Nationalists try to fight the massive Muslim population -- and because of the horrible track record with freedom that Europe has developed for itself, this weird sort of judicial battle is possible.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    29 Mar '18 08:171 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Did she threaten to go and punch Muslims? No, not at all. She was going to publicly proclaim that Allah is gay or trans, etc.

    The government in the UK knew this would result in Muslims attacking people for the perceived insults.

    Thus, she was banned for life.

    This is what is known as a Heckler's veto:

    [quote]In the free speech context, a he ...[text shortened]... onal law expert, you have probably heard of this. I learned about it in the 8th grade I believe.
    No, it isn't and you know it.

    She's a foreigner in another country who tried and failed to provoke a disturbance. Nobody "heckled her" so your perfunctory review of off-topic case law isn't as impressive as you think.
  13. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    29 Mar '18 08:58
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    1. Non-sequitor.
    2. A place can be wealthy but still be ignorant.
    3. A place can also be doing good in several areas and bad in another.
    4. Moreover, there's no link between a society's level of prosperity and its freedom, liberty, or respect for democracy.
    1. What is? Don't use words you don't understand the meaning of.
    2. How can a place be ignorant?
    3. And?
    4. No. But high standards in education, healthcare, employment
    opportunities and quality of life probably do reflect a society's
    level of prosperity. (As stated in the post you are replying to.)
  14. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65522
    29 Mar '18 09:43
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    f.
    2. How can a place be ignorant?
    Same way a state can have 'rights'.
  15. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19323
    29 Mar '18 10:38
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    No, it isn't and you know it.

    She's a foreigner in another country who tried and failed to provoke a disturbance. Nobody "heckled her" so your perfunctory review of off-topic case law isn't as impressive as you think.
    She was going to create a disturbance with... Speech people found offensive.

    Correct?

    So, by this logic, any speech that is offensive and can provoke people to violence is illegitimate use of speech, right? I can kind of see that for instances of gross misconduct and the foulest of obscenities.

    But saying Allah is gay or Trans... This was enough to be deemed the threat of making a great disturbance , correct?

    That says more about the British Muslim community as extremists than it says about Lauren Southern ad an extremist.

    Yes or no?
Back to Top