[gkya]

Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business.

> The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...]

Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

[stale2002]

The whole inciting violence question is pretty clear.

If someone says "everybody, let's go kill this person or group of people on Saturday at Noon". THAT, is inciting violence.

[splintercell]

It isn't actually. What happens in other countries is, nobody ever says "Everybody, lets go kill this person", rather "Everybody, the other community must pay".

If the courts and police starts prosecuting that kind of euphemism laden language, then they shift further.

On the other hand, keep everything open and people tend to learn and build filters for stuff like this.

[jeroen]

No, it isn't clear. Just because you can come up with one obvious example does not mean there aren't many situations that are less obvious.

[studentrob]

> Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure

The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions!

Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men.

When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals.

I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France.

> Speech should not be regulated in any ways

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.

[TDL]

"You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater..."

Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment.

https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...

[studentrob]

Interesting, thanks for the correction. Maybe instead we can say, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life. The point is there are limits to free speech, even in America, though there are less limits there than in Europe where hate speech laws have been introduced.

[TDL]

Certainly, credible threats of violence are certainly a line.

[gkya]

> You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Come on mate, I thought we're talking about political speech :)

With regards to Erdogan as a businessman, the thing is, he is using his position to prosper as a rich man. I repeat, he has no care about what happens to the country. There are no ideologies, no nothing here. He uses the state as a means to cash in what he can. And he has his circle of assistants etc., what he wants is to be able to steer the politics and ultimately the state the way he wants w/o any friction.

[studentrob]

> he is using his position to prosper as a rich man

I just said he would prosper more by accepting the diversity that exists in his region and the world. You're not even reading my comment, you're just repeating the same thing you said before.

[jessaustin]

So he's basically a Ba'athist? That's parsimonious. I think this is the ground state for modern governments. To get anything more than Ba'athism takes a lot of work by a lot of people.

[nl]

It's probably worth noting that I don't think @gkya is supporting Erdogan. He is merely pointing out that his actions in attempting to censor foreign media have motives which aren't obvious.

When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.

[studentrob]

> It's probably worth noting that I don't think @gkya is supporting Erdogan

Thanks, I see that now. Some of @gkya's words sounded like they take the opposite viewpoint, such as,

>> Speech should not be regulated in any ways

>> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.

>> freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning.

It reads like it was unedited and is very hard to follow

> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.

I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.

[nl]

>> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.

> I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.

Right, but that is assuming that Erdogan is trying to do what is best for the country in the long term. Many would argue his primary concern is Erdogan's interests in the short term.

[studentrob]

> Many would argue his primary concern is Erdogan's interests in the short term.

Former dictators who censored speech don't generally have happy post-political careers. I wouldn't imagine trying to put a strangle hold on a whole country's speech is exactly stress free either.

Whether he is planning for the short term or for his whole life, Erdogan isn't so bright as @gkya would have you believe. He certainly doesn't have the best interests of his country in mind. However, I'll add something else you may not expect me to believe, which is that I believe everyone does things in their own interests. I wouldn't expect anyone to do otherwise. Erdogan's behavior is simply a matter of foresight. He's not seeing his own future clearly.

Ergo, Erdogan isn't bright.

[nl]

Ergo, Erdogan isn't bright.

No one - least of all @gkya - is saying he is bright. They are saying his actions aren't stupid.

Former dictators who censored speech don't generally have happy post-political careers.

Plenty have died in office while still holding power, too. Most of Turkey's immediate neighbors have had dictators who died while in power.

[gkya]

I'm sorry if I've been unclear. I do not in any ways support Erdogan. Though I insist that freedom of speech does not mean that one can be irresponsible of what he says.

[studentrob]

Everything you say and do has consequences whether you accept them or not. Free speech says the state cannot punish you for what you say, with certain small exceptions that vary by country that has free speech, such as libel and direct threats on someone's life.

[hartator]

> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.

Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.

For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.

[adrianm]

So according to this binary definition of free speech, what countries actually have it?

It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[gkya]

Quoting my grandparent comment:

> In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

So to this I agree:

> Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.

What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.

[stale2002]

"One cannot say anything and go by."

Yes you CAN. Nobody has a right not to be offended. You don't have to be mindful of what you say. That's not freedom of speech.

[Silfen]

GP isn't talking about taking legal action against offensive speech. If you're offensive, it is entirely reasonable for people to take social action against you - like branding you an asshole - but you should never be arrested or punished by the state.

[gkya]

You have to be mindful of what you say, that is, you mustn't say things you can't prove. You mustn't lie. Or else, you'll be disproved, and announced publicly as a liar. I don't say that you are not free to lie, though, what I say is, in this case, by lying, you accept such consequences. By saying something, you're responsible to its truth.

You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at.

And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...

> Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1)

> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1)

> The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2)

> 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. (Article 11)

> Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1)

> Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)

[stale2002]

You can't go around talking about how people are "free to insult" but that other people have a right not to be insulted. That is BS double speak.

Either you believe in free speech or you don't. Don't pussy foot around it.

If you believe that people should be arrested for insulting people in the wrong way then SAY it! Dont hide behind some human dignity double speak.

[studentrob]

@gkya doesn't have the American or even European understanding of free speech. He's got his own definition and I doubt we will be able to convince him via the internet how simple the issue is and how complicated he is making it. I'm totally with you, by the way.

[Tomte]

That's the predominant American view, which is pretty... extremist.

Sure, "free speech exactly like in the US" is a binary issue.

Free speech, as sensibly construed, is a whole spectrum.

[xorcist]

The US has a higher tolerance for hate speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to say anything. The bar is comparably low to sue for defamation and libel, for example. Pretty much only the UK (perhaps France?) is less free in that particular aspect for comparable countries.

And free speech is not very useful unless you have access to ways to practice it. In a country where mass media practice active censorship voluntarily (against "wardrobe malfunctions" and swear words) in order to avoid state sanctions, that absolutist view gets a bit problematic.

[jessaustin]

We have lots of problems, but "extremist" speech ain't one of them.

[studentrob]

Lol. According to some, speech justifies mass killings. And the world keeps spinning..