Western countries are becoming more orwellian

[Caolela]

Can they be easily replaced by a large group of people with similar skills? If their skills are so scarce they could easily take them elsewhere.

It has nothing to do with scarcity but that's a nice canard to try to peddle. It is only constant corporate greed to squeeze a nickle more profit out of workers at every chance, and to give it to themselves and shareholders.

[Deleted]

George Orwell was an optimist - Mikko Hyppönen

[PC2]

In this case, causation is pretty obvious and logical. If you allow hate speech to thrive, then it results in more hate in the society, and this hate leads to higher rates of crimes based on hate. I would be surprised if the correlation didn't exist, actually...

Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere. You're going to have to learn that people out there will disagree, a lot. Everyone outside a narrow echo chamber will constantly hear speech they dont like.

True, violence has been going down. The society evolves. Old model of semi-anarchy is being reconsidered, and the system slowly moves towards a European-like model. Not saying that this is the only factor, but it does contribute.

That depends on European results over time. If the statistics show they have the most sustainable productive model, then we could emulate them in the future. If their economic model can't effectively compete with new developing powers then their model will lose influence.

[Cizr]

Punishing people for "mean" tweets sure is Orwellian

[Sluvs]

Germany has strict laws, and has, for decades, against Nazi-related themes and Holocaust denying, mainly due to their history in relation to the horrors of the Holocaust. Per your examples:

Austria: Author David Irving jailed for three years for expressing the opinion that the holocaust did not happen:
Google: "BBC David Irving jailed"
Breaking the law

Germany: Another holocaust denier, Ursula Haverbeck, jailed for expressing their opinion:
Google: "Ursula Haverbeck jailed"
Breaking the law

Germany: Holocaust denial by ex-lawyer Sylvia Stolz:
Google: "sylvia stolz jailed"
Breaking the law

UK: Liam Stacey jailed for sending racist tweets about a footballer while extremely drunk after a night out (not inciting violence, just being a bit of a twat and the tweets were not directed at the footballer's twitter account, Liam was reported by people who followed his twitter):
Google: "Liam Stacey jailed"
Breaking the law (Racially Aggravated s4A Public order Act 1986, created 30 years ago)

UK: Paul Weston of LibertyGB arrested for quoting Winston Churchill's views on Islam. Yes, arrested in England for quoting Churchill:
Google: "Paul Weston arrested Churchill"
He was arrested for not having authorization for his speech and refusing to comply with police when asked to move, not for "having a different opinion"

I don't see any of this as "becoming more Orwellian". In each case, these people were purposely breaking well-known laws, and in one of your examples his arrest wasn't for an opinion, it was for refusing to leave after police asked him to because he didn't have license to preach there.

For a minute there i thought you were covering judas priest.

OT: Probably has been said already, but we are actually heading to a world that it's more like "Brave new world" from aldous huxley. I suggest you read it. We are consuming entertaiment at an alarming rate, and only that is becoming relevant to us.

[Xarkan]

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

Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

What on earth do you want to say that shackles demanding your targetting of groups is based on acts and intent not color or creed hinders you? Do you crave the option of lying?

- - - Updated - - -

Calling someone a nigger surely will. Which is just a word, too.

Calling Obama neger might get some social democrat ranting about you having claimed someone was a nigger so you can defend yourself claiming the translations is negro.

The previous sentence violated no danish laws. Nor did any of the 3 words if directed at a person of some form of color. Edit: In the actual case neither Soeren Espersen or Jeppe Kofod were thrown in jail. .. possibly because it was more a media circus and there never was an actual case

[Kheirn]

I do not agree with immigration and I believe that immigrants should be deported back to their home countries.

This is free spech. This is allowed in any western civilization.

Get out of our country you shit-stained job-stealing monkeyfucking rapists and go back to where you came from.

This is hate speech. This is illegal in countries where there are laws against hate speech.


Here's the thing, both examples convey the same message. The concept of free speech has been completely twisted and misunderstood into something along the lines of "I can say whatever I want" and not what it actually entails; the ability to freely convey any message without opression. What e.g. Sweden, Norway and Denmark have done is to enforce the message to be written in a civilized manner by law. If you have trouble understanding this and the difference between the two examples, you have serious issues and should look into why you have such a need to express yourself using hate speech.

[PC2]

This is free spech. This is allowed in any western civilization.


This is hate speech. This is illegal in countries where there are laws against hate speech.


Here's the thing, both examples convey the same message. The concept of free speech has been completely twisted and misunderstood into something along the lines of "I can say whatever I want" and not what it actually entails; the ability to freely convey any message without opression. What e.g. Sweden, Norway and Denmark have done is to enforce the message to be written in a civilized manner by law. If you have trouble understanding this and the difference between the two examples, you have serious issues and should look into why you have such a need to express yourself using hate speech.

Your version of hate speech shouldn't be illegal. Throwing people in jail and fining them because they hurt your feelings is not justice.

[Deleted]

Your version of hate speech shouldn't be illegal. Throwing people in jail and fining them because they hurt your feelings is not justice.

Your opinion is duly noted.

[Fojos]

This is free spech. This is allowed in any western civilization.


This is hate speech. This is illegal in countries where there are laws against hate speech.


Here's the thing, both examples convey the same message. The concept of free speech has been completely twisted and misunderstood into something along the lines of "I can say whatever I want" and not what it actually entails; the ability to freely convey any message without opression. What e.g. Sweden, Norway and Denmark have done is to enforce the message to be written in a civilized manner by law. If you have trouble understanding this and the difference between the two examples, you have serious issues and should look into why you have such a need to express yourself using hate speech.

Saying that people from an islamic culture are more likely to commit rape can also be considered a hate crime in the joke called Sweden (what is true or not has no relevance in this culturally relativistic country).

Forcing people to be polite is orwellian. I don't see how you can't understand (well, if you are scandinavian I can understand it, the place where people are scared shitless of standing up for their true opinions).

[Xarkan]

Your version of hate speech shouldn't be illegal. Throwing people in jail and fining them because they hurt your feelings is not justice.

A tapestry of public insults becomes a curtain preventing a person from getting in to a job interview though.

Also, and importantly, the small part of me that is a bit conservative remembers this: It costs nothing to try to be polite.

Edit: neither is an argument for laws obviously.

[Kheirn]

Your version of hate speech shouldn't be illegal. Throwing people in jail and fining them because they hurt your feelings is not justice.

What's the difference between punching someone in the face and mentally assaulting someone? You could use "just toughen up" as a counter argument against hate speech, and I could do the same against being physically assaulted. Just toughen up, let's legalize physical assault. Mental abuse can lead to depression and suicide, physical abuse can lead to physical damages that could potentially cause death.

[Xarkan]

Saying that people from an islamic are more likely to commit rape can also be considered a hate crime in the joke called Sweden (what is true or not has no relevance in this culturally relativistic country).

There is a difference between saying a group is more likely to contain/ have a higher percentage of certain types of criminals and saying[edit]/insinuating they are all of that type of criminal.

[Fojos]

There is a difference between saying a group is more likely to contain/ have a higher percentage of certain types of criminals and saying they are all of that type of criminal.

Not according to weaklings here. Making any kind of statement regarding this can be considered racist hate speech among weak Swedes.

[PC2]

A tapestry of public insults becomes a curtain preventing a person from getting in to a job interview though.

That's already covered in the law. If you can prove someone damaged your financial opportunity based on a lie they owe you for your lost earnings. If the insults are true, then it's good they came out, the truth should always win.

[Fojos]

What's the difference between punching someone in the face and mentally assaulting someone? You could use "just toughen up" as a counter argument against hate speech, and I could do the same against being physically assaulted. Just toughen up, let's legalize physical assault. Mental abuse can lead to depression and suicide, physical abuse can lead to physical damages that could potentially cause death.

They're extremely different. Much more is required to constitue as mental abuse than off-hand comments from someone.

From someone who works in the area: physical violence generally lead to worse mental disruption than any insult ever will, no matter how vile.

[Deleted]

Can you give an example of such Western country and such a law? From what I've seen, these laws tend to be reasonable, they punish people not for their opinions, but for expressing them in a derogatory aggressive manner.

Here's a question for you. How do you express dissapproval with certain Islam commandments without resorting to derogatory aggressive manner?

How do you express dissapproval for the following:

Kill all Muslims who leave Islam. (Koran.2;217/4;89/Bukhari.9;84-57).
Koran can not be doubted. (Koran.2;1).
Islam is the only acceptable religion. (Koran.3;85).
Muslims must fight (jihad) to non-Muslims, even if they don't want to. (Koran.2;216).
We the non-Muslims are pigs and apes. (Koran. 2;62-65/Koran.5;59-60/Koran.7;166).
We the non-Muslims cannot be friends with Muslims. (Koran.5;51).
We the non-Muslims sworn enemies of Muslims and Islam. (Koran.4;101).

Go on. I'm waiting.

[Kheirn]

They're extremely different. Much more is required to constitue as mental abuse than off-hand comments from someone.

From someone who works in the area: physical violence generally lead to worse mental disruption than any insult ever will, no matter how vile.

These off-hand comments add up though, and saying it's okay for one is directly implying it's okay for everyone. Suddenly you have up to hundreds, if not thousands, of hate-filled remarks which can cause a lot of damage.

[PC2]

What's the difference between punching someone in the face and mentally assaulting someone? You could use "just toughen up" as a counter argument against hate speech, and I could do the same against being physically assaulted. Just toughen up, let's legalize physical assault. Mental abuse can lead to depression and suicide, physical abuse can lead to physical damages that could potentially cause death.

Physical damage can be accurately verified and measured. Claimed mental damage incurred from speech cannot be.

[Xarkan]

Here's a question for you. How do you express dissapproval with certain Islam commandments without resorting to derogatory aggressive manner?

We are apes so that part is true. And some of you can probably not be friends with muslims (not that i have any muslim friends) and your phrasing makes you sound like a sworn enemy of Islam. All[edit: actually only most] religions are the one true and only acceptable religion. The holy scripture mostly cannot be doubted (except it should in some religions, Christianity for example base all scripture on the testimony of witnesses, the echo of their god) And all humans should die. Ok maybe not the last one.

You cannot argue against what is true in a decent manner.

If you do not wish that i accuse you of being an ape then blame my misinterpretation of Darwin.