[frankquist]

An an European, I'm kind of offended you're stretching the definition of fascism to also include "anything that suppresses free speech". Can you please not water down the definition of a term linked to the killing of millions?

[toomuchtodo]

As an American, I look down on the limits of speech in Europe with disdain.

Free speech isn't responsible for genocide; the electorate is.

[pluma]

As a European, I look down on Americans having decided that free speech includes giving people money or mistreating employees as a corporation because of the corporation's religious views.

Excuse me while I enjoy the benefits of our fascist socialism.

[msla]

So you shouldn't be able to support political causes?

And most Americans are opposed to shit like the Hobby Lobby crap, just like most Europeans are opposed to what Russia does.

Also, cut out the whataboutism. It's dishonest.

[walterstucco]

> So you shouldn't be able to support political causes?

No, you shouldn't if they are based on hate

Countries that allow this kind of "political support" are idiotic.

The main difference between Europe and USA is that we Europeans have learned from our past mistakes

[Danihan]

He's talking about Citizen United, which has nothing to do with hate. Corporate money is speech because you need money to buy advertising / billboards / etc. This holds true for small corporations and non-profits as well.

If money wasn't speech, the government would easily be able stifle speech simply by limiting what advertising and promotions a corporation could do. So the ruling and legal precept are prefectly valid.

Aside from that, "based on hate" is a completely meaningless phrase. It's great for creating stuff like "blasphemy laws" though, I suppose. In your opinion, should I not be able to insult Scientology? Is criticism "hate?" Are insults? What about making a negative documentary about Catholicism, or any other religion?

>The main difference between Europe and USA is that we Europeans have learned from our past mistakes

Are you sure? Europe doesn't seem too stable lately.

[anigbrowl]

The activities of corporations should be limited, particularly where politics is concerned. That's why we have campaign finance laws in the first place. citizen's United promotes the idea that whoever has the most money should be able to buy the biggest megaphone, which is inherently anti-democratic.

[walterstucco]

> In your opinion, should I not be able to insult Scientology?

Of course you can

But then you have to suffer the consequences if what you said is against the law

For example if you say that scientology is a cult, it's your right to say so

If you say that members of scientology are pedophiles without any proof, it's not

When a right has no limits it's not a right anymore, it's a privilege

> What about making a negative documentary about Catholicism, or any other religion?

Seriously, if you don't get the difference between criticism and hate speech, I can't help you.

BTW, you can't say lightly anything bad about Scientology for the same reason Citizen United is a threat to freedom

They can throw an enormous amount of money to "the problem"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t...

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-...

http://www.sptimes.com/News/32899/TampaBay/Hardball.html

> Are you sure? Europe doesn't seem too stable lately.

Still not killing each other in the streets over a stupid statue

[frankquist]

Think and feel all you want on our "limits to free speech" (which vary widely per country). But please don't water down the definition of fascism for your own rhetorical ends. Fascism does not equate to "any infringment of freedom" and it should not be. Moving the goalposts on that one leaves us less able to deal with real nazis.

You're obviously pro-free speech. But surely, if speech is so important, it is also important to make sure it can be effective. If one waters down definitions like that, the ability to speak effectively against dangers diminishes.

I'm an european, way too young to have seen WWII. But I deal with its broad consequences, that still permeate society and psyche in subtle ways, daily. To see the evil of fascism repurposed to mean something else, just makes me sad. Don't screw up our heritage please.

[CaptainZapp]

OK, fine.

Then how, as an American, do you justify Ag_gag laws?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

It seems to me that free speech values in the US are not quite as absolute as you make them out to be. Especially when the interest of powerful people or big corporations come to play.

[toomuchtodo]

> Then how, as an American, do you justify Ag_gag laws?

I don't, and they have been repeatedly struck down by our courts. Checks and balances between overzealous legislators and our judicial branch.

[GauntletWizard]

Ag-gag laws are abhorrent. Most Americans agree. They're a relatively recent problem (Most have been passed or on the ballot since 2012, so last five years) caused by corrupt politicians that Americans are working to solve.

Pointing at them is classic whataboutism. We have problems in the US. We mostly confront them headon rather than pretending they don't exist. Suppression of speech is pretending they don't exist.

Another example: Americans are constantly blasted by Europeans for racism. Racism is a very real problem in America - That's why groups like Black Lives Matter exist. We deal with these problems with speech, like the aforementioned group. As such, some fairly basic indicators, like the public opinion on miscegenation have been trending in a good direction - Less than 20% of America disapproves of it[1]. The data is not quite quantified in the same way, but there's an argument that in Germany, that number is more than 40%[2]. Across the EU, 35% of people would be upset if their child were dating a black person. The numbers are not directly comparable - The US numbers are about interracial marriage as a whole, not personalizing it about "your child", and I've seen firsthand that there's a difference. But those aren't numbers that swing that far. It might be equally bad, it might be a little worse in the US. It's not the sea change that it's so often presented as - Racism is a global problem, not a US one.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_Un... [2]http://www.equineteurope.org/IMG/pdf/ebs_437_en.pdf

[CaptainZapp]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Just one comment:

I don't think that my comment was whataboutism. Not when I reply to the following quote:

"As an American, I look down on the limits of speech in Europe with disdain"

Which implicitly puts an absolute to free speech in America. Which it's most definitely not.

[GauntletWizard]

My point was- The grandparent probably looks down on Ag-gag laws with disdain, too. Most Americans do.

[walterstucco]

cops in EU are not targeting black people, that's why we don't need groups like "black lives matter".

I come from Italy, parents in Italy are upset even if you ask them what they think about their children marrying someone from the village 2 Kms away from theirs

But then they won't shoot anybody who does it

It's not really racism.

it's old people being old