[nine_k]

Do you honestly want that entities like FB or Google would filter political speech? Would filter speech in general, weeding out what they'd find wrong?

I'm fine with FB or twitter or whatnot adding their epistemic status banners, like "incorrect according to current scientific consensus". Doing more would, to my mind, produce seriously more harm than good.

It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt, it may lead to much, much worse development of the diseases and far more painful consequences than being open and honest with itself, even when it feels extremely embarrassing.

[kodah]

As much as I disagree with large companies who are conduit for every day communication regulating said communication, it does feel like society is a little less off it's rocker lately. It's too premature to tell, but you could be correct.

[mschuster91]

> It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt

The problem is, from an European perspective, the US concept of "free speech". Allowing hate (e.g. swastika flags), a putsch attempt or outright lies ("Big Steal") to be shown and supported publicly and not acting against it is only emboldening those who spread this kind of content.

I won't deny that Germany has a problem with a tiny but vocal minority that denies vaccinations. But in the US, it's half the country that fell to the propaganda because no one nipped it in the bud while it was still possible!

[d110af5ccf]

> fell to the propaganda because no one nipped it in the bud while it was still possible

That's quite the assumption you're making.

Many were already against vaccines. Many others already distrusted the government to an extreme degree. Then suddenly vaccination became a matter of political allegiance as well.

I don't see how curtailing freedom of speech would have made things any better.

[nine_k]

Indeed, this is the problem with the European lack of notion of free speech :(

[TomSwirly]

This is an offensive slur towards Europeans.

In no country in the world, not even the US, is all speech legal.

Moving from the US to Europe, I've found a much _wider_ range of speech here in practice, partly because money is NOT considered to be equivalent to speech here.

And the latitude of speech is quite great. The Netherlands has some of the strictest laws about hate speech in the world, and yet one of our politicians evaded punishment (a minor fine) because he said Moroccans were like dogs, not that they were dogs. (It was more complicated than that, but that was the basic idea.)

Get a grip.

[nine_k]

I did not say "Europeans", meaning the people. I said "European" meaning the general intellectual / political consensus that good speech should be allowed, while bad speech, for various notions of "bad", should be suppressed, gently or not.

I find this line of thinking quite perilous, even though it was the prevalent mode of thinking through centuries.

Silly slurs, like "<ethnic group> is like <animals>", can be discounted as silly. The real test is saying something really controversial and not obviously stupid. I'm afraid that in Europe it's not easier than in the US.

[mschuster91]

European countries have personally experienced, on our own soil, the dangers that unchecked free speech brings. The constitutions of our nations reflected learning what had led to the rise of fascism in the first place, and the need to prevent what happened from 1933-1945 from ever happening again.

Meanwhile, the US Constitution hasn't seen a substantial update in decades, much less a true reform taking into account hundreds of years of learning from history. The result is - again, from a Continental European view - a hot mess ranging from eccentrities such as voting on Tuesdays, over massive influence of Christian fundamentalism in politics despite the US being the first state in the world to not have a state religion, to a total inability of democracy to defend itself against demagogues and, in the case of Russian propaganda campaigns, even enemy hostility.

[nine_k]

The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial.

I think that the problem of Weimar Germany was not in the unchecked circulation of Völkischer Beobachter or whatever. The problem was that the Nazi propaganda fell on intently listening ears, and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays. BTW one of the first things Hitler did when he seized power was curbing the "anti-German" public speech, along with political activity. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I see that Germany has had an enormous trauma. I understand the immediate post-war necessity of communication control. But, with all due respect, I think that the current limitations do a disservice to the German democracy, both by creating the notion of thoughtcrime and forbidden speech at all, and by hiding the real amount of problems from the society, which could otherwise more adequately react and help heal them.

[mschuster91]

> The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial.

The last substantial update was in 1971, to lower the voting age to 18. Since then, nothing was done on a federal level to deal with the load of issues that have cropped up in the meantime: a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics, equal access to abortion, unionization/worker representation, or the complete dysfunctionality of Congress which couldn't even be bothered to condemn Trump for his role in the January 6th 2021 events!

> and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays

We see something similar with the US Republican leadership unable to keep the power plays from the far-right in check. It began with the Tea Party, culminated (for now...) in the 45th Presidency and now there are QAnon believers sitting in Congress. Either Trump himself or Ron DeSantis are going to make the run in 2024 and it's by no means certain that they will be defeated again.

The US is at a crucial tipping point of history.

> But, with all due respect, I think that the current limitations do a disservice to the German democracy, both by creating the notion of thoughtcrime and forbidden speech at all, and by hiding the real amount of problems from the society, which could otherwise more adequately react and help heal them.

There is absolutely no place for right-arm salutes or calling of extermination of people to be in any part of democracy. You don't need to "heal" with this shit, the last people who tried giving Nazis concessions (aka "appeasement politics") ended with a load of V2 rockets on their roofs.

Fascism always devolves into one group of society (be it ethnic, religious or, in case of the modern far-right, sometimes purely ideological) claiming superiority - and using every tool in the book to achieve their aims.

And it's not like the old Nazis hadn't explicitly announced their aims. To quote Goebbels:

> We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem… We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.

The modern far-right acts exactly like this, and anyone refusing to learn from history will only help history repeat itself.

[nine_k]

> a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics

Do you think the constitution needs a change to address that? The constitution already forbids racial discrimination and power abuse (else it won't be called abuse), etc. I think it's the legislature's job to make laws to address the current (and ever-changing) situation, and the executive branch's job to enforce these norms. I would rather keep the constitution from changing for tactical interests.

> the 45th Presidency and now there are QAnon believers sitting in Congress

Still, the power was peacefully (if scandalously) passed to the next elected President. I'd say that the system is working within the designed tolerances. I have a few thoughts about improving the election system in the US, but I don't think it has failed.

> You don't need to "heal" with this shit.

The problem is that the criminals are still citizens, still a part of the society. Seeing pus seeping from a damaged body part and saying that this shit does not need healing seems like a slightly cavalier approach to me. Even when a surgery is the best approach.

Certainly, seeing people doing things that are repulsive an dangerous is very, very, very embarrassing! But I think one thing is worse: closing your eyes to not see them, while they continue doing the repulsive and dangerous things unseen. That's one of the points of free speech.

> giving Nazis concessions (aka "appeasement politics")

Indeed. But I don't speak about any concessions, special-casing like the prewar politics did. I speak about a level playing field.

> "We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons."

These weapons won't be armed if there were not popular support :( My point is that muffing the voices of that popular support so that we, the nice educated democracy-loving people, don't hear it, may lead to a much more rude awakening than e.g. the Trump's election was.