[pickledoyster]

>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand.

I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society.

[aydyn]

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

[Braxton1980]

A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.

[txrx0000]

> A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse.

Indeed. But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence.

Human nature doesn't change in a democratic society that allows free dialogue, what changed is the way it is expressed.

If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest themselves in reality.

[jgeada]

Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently.

You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.

While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.

[txrx0000]

The examples you're listing aren't just words. They're actions.

I could say I'm going to deny your health insurance, or deny entry of your type to my group, or sue you for something. But notice how me saying any of these things don't actually have any immediate effect on you, because I don't control your health insurance or moderate a group you want to be in, or know who you are to sue you.

I can use words to convince people who do control those things to do things to you, but you can convince them not to, and convince others to do the same thing to me. The value of free speech is in replacing these conflicts that would otherwise be physical violence with words. Human nature didn't change. We still fight all the time, but with words.

[jgeada]

They're words with consequences, backed by law and the freedom of companies doing all they're permitted to do; but fundamentally just words. Contracts are just words, but words with meaning and power, because we all agree to play by those rules.

[wakawaka28]

>You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.

None of these is "just words" lol. The words just convey something that will or won't be done. All of these examples are overly dramatic too. I too wish I lived in a world where nobody could tell me "no" but that'll never happen. If someone has lots of money and you don't, they probably won't sue you. Especially for a petty reason. There's not enough to gain from that.

>While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.

Violence is physical. People are only trying to claim a connection because they want to censor their enemies using one of the exceptions to free speech, which is when there is threat of imminent violence. As nasty or unpleasant as words may be, they bear no resemblence to actual violence. And no, you don't get to censor people because they say stuff that you feel bad about. The whole point of free speech is to allow the expression of unpopular and unpleasant words. Please get your language right and stop trying to gaslight the rest of us into a censorship program. Thank you for your attention to this matter lol

[Braxton1980]

>If you erase the horrible parts of ourselves we worked hard to banish onto paper, they will eventually remanifest themselves in reality.

What does this mean? That if people aren't able to express or relieve themselves of some horrible act then some people will be more likely to do something bad?

Like if a person can't be racist against Muslims on Facebook (due to it being illegal) they will be more likely to harm Muslims physically?

[mrguyorama]

> But one should realize that thorny words are precisely what replaces physical violence.

No this is bullshit. The Nazis didn't kill the jews because they couldn't say mean things about them. The Nazis didn't purposely target trans people and gay people and mentally challenged people and political opponents because they couldn't slag them publicly.

Germany did not become Nazis because of any lack of free speech. People were talking about how horrifying the Nazis were right up until they were put in camps.

Christ.

The Civil War didn't happen because people weren't able to say black people are lesser (which they were always able to say and still are)

This take is detached from history.

How much violence did Native Americans avoid by getting to say how awful they were being treated? They were never muzzled, so why did they still end up basically ethnically cleansed?

[txrx0000]

These are examples of minorities being oppressed through physical violence. Minorities are still oppressed in democratic societies today because a democratic society by definition prioritizes the majority's interests.

The difference is oppression used to be physical and involved a lot of killing, now it is done through non-violent means through words. That's what I meant by words replacing violence.

[mrguyorama]

No, that oppression definitely involved plenty of words before. The natives were "savages" and "in the way" and "weren't using the land" we said.

Southern preachers insisted that being enslaved was the black man's rightful place, as god intended, because they were naturally less intelligent and "savage" and needed good guidance from the white man.

I'm tired, after hundreds of years, of people still insisting "no no no, just a little more information freedom and humans will magically fix all their natural biases and magically stop acting like humans and magically stop believing what is comfortable instead of what is provably correct"

It's absolutely good to be much closer to the "Freer" side of that spectrum than the "government enforced muzzle" side, but I'm so tired of people insisting that we can't possibly wiggle around a little bit on the spectrum to find maybe a better place.

Oppression does not come from what laws you have. Oppression comes from how power works. It doesn't matter what laws you have on the books if you put people in charge who do not give a shit about them. It doesn't matter if you have the first amendment if you elect enough people to just disregard it and even change it if you want.

Rules aren't real. Rules don't matter unless you can enforce them. If you allow oppressive people into power, it doesn't matter how many times you write "don't oppress people"

What oppression has free speech demonstrably stopped?

[tejohnso]

> If the regime is able to do this because of speech

Okay but that's a big "IF". I suspect a regime attempting to do that might be promulgating a significant amount of propaganda, but I doubt that they're able to be oppressive "because of speech".

What about loss of upward mobility for the middle class, or loss of living wages, mismanaged public institutions, corruption, bribery, collapse of democratic process?

All of this enables or sustains oppressive regimes and doesn't require any kind of speech from citizens. And without these kinds of serious problems, citizens barking nonsense won't result in much. Hindering free speech only makes it easier for a regime to continue to exacerbate these serious problems and continue oppression without being called out.

[aydyn]

That is the exact opposite of reality. In reality, the oppressive regimes that enacted genocides all suppressed speech.

[oscaracso]

A regime is an organization.

[atoav]

It can be. But there can be speech where most reasonable people would agree that it should be regulated. E.g. if some dude walks up to your 5 year old child and starts to tell them in intricate detail about his violent sexual fantasy, pretty much everybody notices that the kids right not to have to hear this outweighs the adults edgy itch to do this to a child.

And a lot of speech is like this, nearly no speech is consequence free. I am not saying we should ban any speech that has negative consequences. What I am saying is that with other rights we also have to way the active freedoms of one person ("the freedom to do a thing") against the passive freedoms of all the others ("the freedom to not have a thing done to you").

With other rights it is the same, you may have a right to carry a firearm and even shoot it. But if you shoot it for example in church, other peoples right not to have to deal with you shooting that gun in that church outweighs your right to do that.

In the German speaking part of the EU we decided that the right of literal Nazis to carry their insignia doesn't outweigh the right of the others to not have to see the insignia that have brought so much pain and suffering in these lands. To some degree this is symbolic, because it only bans symbols and not ideologies, but hey, I like my government to protect my state from a fascist takeover, because they are kind of hard to reverse without violence.

[jszymborski]

Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.

I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal.

A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air.

So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is.

EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

   Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

[whycome]

Imagine a situation where a person reasonably believes there was a fire (they saw smoke, but it turned out to be a vape or some sort of smoke machine part of the show). They're arrested for the false claim. Others know that it's too risky. Now, when there's a fire, people are reluctant to speak up just in case. It's the chilling effect that can affect speech. We have whistleblowers who are afraid to speak up. And when the means of speaking out or alerting others (ie via email or social media or smartphone) is controlled by a large corporation that may feel threatened...

[Braxton1980]

>They're arrested for the false claim.

This person would be able to provide evidence as to why they thought there was a fire, show why their belief is genuine and not a lie.

[psunavy03]

> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.

This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason.

Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.

[dragonwriter]

> This is from a dissenting opinion of a US Supreme Court justice

No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.

[ambicapter]

Maybe people keep using it because it makes a lot of sense to them, whether or not it's accepted (US) case law or not.

[potato3732842]

> yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason

Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.

[Braxton1980]

Child pornography

[jszymborski]

Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.

[jszymborski]

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.

Regardless, incitement remains an exception to free speech the world over to some degree. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that incitement to discrimination is prohibited, for example [0].

My point stands, people of most societies globally believe certain speech should not be protected.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

[wakawaka28]

Nope, that's giving them too much credit. Censorship is oppressive except in very narrow circumstances. Free speech is actually the safety valve in society. Censorship is one of the hallmarks of a tyrannical regime, and is incompatible with democracy.

[alphazard]

> not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society.

This strikes me as just incorrect. What example from history shows totalitarianism being successfully avoided because of controls on speech?

The first item in the totalitarian playbook is controlling speech, and there are historical examples of that in every single totalitarian regime that I'm aware of.

[9dev]

Well I can tell you from day-to-day experience in Germany that the fact it’s illegal to say „Heil Hitler“ and similar nazi slogans draws a very clear line between ordinary citizens and right extremists. It’s a good thing nobody can walk around and loudly proclaim their veneration for the darkest period in our history, for doing so makes them an enemy of our democracy and everything it stands for. A society has to have limits to the tolerable, and defend them.

This has worked well for more than half a century here, and I assure you that Germany hasn’t succumbed to a totalitarian regime yet. Quite the opposite to some, erm, land of the free that seems to struggle a lot with freedom lately.

[metalcrow]

I think Germany has not succumbed less because of the laws around speech, and more because of other reasons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_German_coup_d'%C3%A9tat... was a very recent example of a direct attempt to upend democracy there, calling this working well may be overstated