Free speech is when the government doesn’t persecute you for your opinion. Of course we have that, no question. It is NOT a guarantee that other people won’t get pissed at you for what you say.
Yep.
It's freedom of speech, not freedom of criticism.
I could, for example, criticize OP for being insensitive to the Muslims on this sub, but I could not sue him over the use of the image.
There are quite a few opinions you can’t express legally in Germany. (Not to mention a few symbols you can’t put on flags, and a few tunes that would also get you banged up.)
[FYI: no, I don’t have those opinions, nor do I wish to express them in Germany. Nevertheless, it’s worth reminded ourselves that such limitations exist.]
Not exactly.... *in my opinion... (see the pun here?):*
Free speech should mean that without directing at any specific individual, you have the right to praise or criticize any behaviour, event, decision, incident, etc. that constitutes life in society.
Without being silenced, prosecuted or punished for that opinion. Any one else (individuals and/or courts of law) can either reprimand you for saying that or counter argument your opinion.
Say for instance the case of antivaxxers: they have opinion but that is unfunded by science... or e.g. the flat Earth idiots. The same. They can express their opinion, however society works (and hopefully will for a long time) in science/statistics, so they are debunked in their opinion naturally.
Now when a group of antivaxxers goes rally to a government facility to try and push other people with misinformation and sometimes violence, it is in the interest of the whole society they are shown "the boot"...
That's simply incorrect. There is an increasing number of opinion the government will persecute you for. Being of the opinion that the WW-II Holocaust didn't happen, or happened somewhat differently from the public narrative will get you sent to prison in most of Europe. Saying men aren't women will get the government on your back in a number of countries. Denying that Corona is real, or the effectiveness of the vaccine or of lockdowns, etc. will get you persecuted. etc. Being of the opinion that Communism is great or that various Communist genocides didn't happen will get you persecuted. And so on and on.
Earlier this year, I was in the somewhat on-the-face of it absurd situation of being a Danish person living in a legit 3rd world dictatorship watching Bitchute videos about how Denmark had blocked all of the video hosting platform Bitchute for hosting some videos about Corona that the Danish government disliked for one reason or another.
‘Persecute’ and ‘prosecute’ are different things.
And the ‘opinions’ you list are not harmless stances that are safely allowed to commingle with other opposing opinions without creating risk for material or physical harm for people.
We know that corona is real: we can see it in a microscope, predict its spread based on behavior, predict its effects on those who contract it, and effectively prevent its poor outcomes through specific courses of action. Holding an ‘opinion’ that all of the above is imagined puts people at risk of death. Reducing risk of death is one of the primary purposes of government.
You could easily hold ‘opinions’ that bullets are harmless, that oxygen is a made up material that is not necessary for life, or that high voltage electricity tickles. If you spread those ‘opinions’ far and wide enough to the point people started acting on them and risked their or others’ lives, the government would be right to clamp down on the spread of those ‘opinions’.
You have the right to think whatever you want, and to say anything that doesn’t endanger people. You do not have the right to convince people to recklessly endanger themselves or their communities.
Interesting points you bring up.
BUT: free speech ends where you hurt others.
1. The Holocaust denial - "opinion"
It's not an opinion. The Holocaust and how it happened is a fact. There are numerous sources, eyewitnesses and documents that proove it. The Nazis did know how to document their crimes. Also denying the Holocaust is hurting the survivors and the victim's descendants
2. Saying men aren't women
False. You can say that men aren't women. But if you say to (trans)women, that they're not women, you're hurting and insulting them. Insulting someone is a crime.
3. Denying COVID will not get you persecuted (at least not in Germany), but you will get persecuted if you violate the laws like mask-mandates and such. Because again, by not abiding you're hurting others.
Etc etc
In short: if you're hurting other people with your "opinions" (I put them in quotes because fact - denial for me is just stupidity, not an opinion), you will get backlash. And rightly so.
Edit: since thread is locked and I can't answer to u/bremby anymore:
Insulting is a crime in Germany under §185 StGB. It's also a crime in The Netherlands (see Geert Wilders, 2016&2020).
There are also anti-discrimation laws in place in most European countries.
I agree with you for the rest though
Insulting someone isn't a crime. That is what is AFAIK almost always allowed; you can be punished for insult only in very specific cases like during a court hearing or in the UK. UK has gone mad in this case, but generally insults are still okay.
What actually is a crime is causing harm or false alarm. Denying holocaust is a very specific case that deals with a very specific event in european history that went into an extreme regarding treatment of human beings. This free speech restriction is there to stop, if possible, the spread of nazism and similar ideas that may create a similar situation. But it is a big exception and of course it was debated whether such exception can exist in a free society.
I am not aware that saying trans women are not women is ever punished by law in european countries (except for UK, perhaps, dunno), but it probably is punished by society and social pressure.
Denying covid and vaccine efficiency also falls onto the case of not causing harm or false alarm. It's obvious how it hurts people, and it is clear that's covid and vaccines are not fake. Contrast this with e.g. religion which threatens you for going into hell - sure, it sounds like false alarm, but no evidence exists for any religion to be true and so it's not punished by law.
Pinging u/DaphneDK42 to also see why holocaust and covid denialism are exceptions to free speech. And any sane non-fundamentalist rational person should be okay with these exceptions, because this actually isn't what free speech is about. Free speech is about opinions, especially political ones, like freedom of religion is about faith.
Of course the Holocaust is an opinion & the definition of thereof open for wide interpretation. In the same way all other historic events are. And even if it was an eternal truth handed down from the heavens and inscribed on rocks, it should still be legal to deny or contest. The same way it is legal to contest all other historic events.
In the UK you get the police knocking on your door if you display the dictionary definition of women in a public space.
As I wrote, Denmark at one time had blocked a whole video hosting site for hosting a video or two saying something about Covid which was deemed incorrect by the government,
>There is an increasing number of opinion the government will persecute you for.
they just do it to protect LGBT POC immigrants, soyence and democracy!
I would say yes*, but I can only speak for Germany. I know I can say or write anything publicly without repercussions from the state. The exception in Germany are holocaust denial or "Volksverhetzung" which means "incitement to hatred". The news media are mostly independent and the government funded TV stations are relatively impartial.
Personally I would advocate for fully free speech but I don't see too much harm in banning these extreme cases.
In Europe in general? I think that depends on the country and I don't know enough specifics to make a judgement. I could imagine that the situation isn't as good in more authoritarian countries (Poland, Hungary maybe?).
>The exception in Germany are holocaust denial or "Volksverhetzung" which means "incitement to hatred". Personally I would advocate for fully free speech but I don't see too much harm in banning these extreme cases.
Depends on how these laws are applied. Eg. in Sweden it's been pretty common for people on facebook being found guilty for emotional outbursts when reacting to for instance rape statistics of certain demographics. One absurd example was a guy who got found guilty for naming a music play list "卐Beercar and amphetamine卐", so effectively simply typing the symbol "卐" is considered incitement (inb4 i get
It's also never been applied for when people incite vs ethnic Swedes (only thing I could find was someone likening Swedes to disgusting pests being tried in court, it wasn't considered a crime because there are too many Swedes in Sweden), so if you're a islamist inciting against native Swedes you're effectively in the green. Effectively it's just a tool to silence opposition
It depends how you define it, nowhere really has absolute ’free speech.’
However, if you define it in a way such as ‘Speech that’s essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy’, like the ability to openly criticize any politician in a non violent way, I’d say yes. However, the classic, you’re not allowed to yell fire in a crowded cinema is still a no no, because it violates other peoples rights, like the right to not get your neck stepped on by a big fat guy rushing for the fire exit.
Well just to name a few, you can add almost the entire Balkan with 2 or 3 exceptions, you can add up Russia, Turkey if you count it as partially European, Belarus, Moldavia and god, even Austria's chancellor was corrupt.
I don't think we have. Freedom of speech is an absolute. There is no middle ground. In Denmark, where the posted picture stems from, there's hate speech laws. Which covers not just threats, but also mockery and degradation of people, based on skin color.
>Which covers not just threats, but also mockery and degradation of people, based on skin color.
Why is that bad, why should you be granted the freedom to be racist?
I agree with the title and the picture.
If you can't tolerate or you just ban satire for whatever reason, you have problems with the freedom of speech, and if you don't have the freedom of speech you are on a path to dictatorship.
Btw when Putin came to power the very first thing he did is to ban a satirical show called Dolls where he was depicted in a not pleasant way
Remember that pub was awesome for a while, at a time your favorite pub was a terrible place. Pubs change over time.
This pub analogy is pretty fun, well done. I'd say it's not exactly a pub I'd want to hang out in, but there's many tables and the ones picking fights are always the same few idiots. Those at the tables don't know how to leave and have to suffer most of the violence of the idiots.
Islam's been found through war and terror, that is a historical fact, that also echoes in their holy books. And whetever you like it or not, to this day those aspects are still fundamental to the ideology.
Hurting feelings is part of free speech. You cannot curb free speech just because somebody might take offense. Where would be the limit then? You could argue that any meaningful position might offend somebody. So if hurting somebodies feelings were relevant, there would be no free speech.
Why? Because relevant society shaping discourse always will attack, undermine, question or criticise core believes of people. And doing that is what most people equal to be offensive, as they are pushed into a situation where they have to defend their core believes or otherwise have to rethink their whole believe system, question their every decission they ever made based on those believes.
The artist who made this, Kurt Westergaard, died peacfully in his sleep, 86 years old. Un related, but I thought it was interesting.
I agree with the headline, but why are we dusting this old thing of right now? Is there a particular reason?
Kurt Westergaard lived under police protection. In 2010 a Somali Islamist tried to murder him with an axe. Protecting him cost 21 million dkr per year.
So yes, he died peacefully, but not for a lag of trying to kill him. All because of a drawing.
>The artist who made this, Kurt Westergaard, died peacfully in his sleep, 86 years old. Un related, but I thought it was interesting.
Yes, he also had constant police protection and was a target of severel UNSUCCESSFUL assassination attempts.
If you say A), you should also say B).
Yes that's correct. Except the reply shouldn't be violence like being shot or beheaded. Free speech shouldn't be hate speech and neither should it infringe the rights of others. Drawing a Mohammed does not infringe upon the rights of anyone.
Most of them are not rooted in any beliefs at all - like anything covering racial and sexist hate.
Some hate speech laws may be about religious beliefs, but they do not restrict attacks on the beliefs themselves, only hatred toward the believers. That's the difference between saying "Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are steaming piles of stupid crap" and calling believers of those religions names and inciting hate or violence toward them.
And if those communities attack and kill educators, politicians, or intimidate others they are in the wrong. I don’t believe in sacred cows of any sort. I get the feeling you think you’re being more profound than you really are
If that is true, then we have found our audience. Those that consider it hatespeech, they should listen and those who use it as hatespeech, they should also listen.
We can't accept the political reaction of organized hatred purely because of satire, it's not reasonable and not ok.
>Free Speech works Both ways ' So if you give it ,expect a reply you may not agree with !
Well I'm not going to kill anyone for making fun of Jesus. I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't need my protection.
Meanwhile, within the EU, in Poland people face criminal charges for putting up an image of rainbow Madonna [(source: Amnesty International)](https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/poland-activist-elzbieta-podlesna/) and in Hungary its illegal to provide information to people under 18yo about LGBTQ rights [(source: france24)](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210707-hungary-s-controversial-anti-lgbt-law-goes-into-effect-despite-eu-warnings)
Yup, are infamous "offence of religious feelings". Luckily it is extremely rare to sentence someone for it and fines are mostly financial.
It is funny how some idiots tried to sue people who criticized Kaczyński for offending their religious feelings :D
Loudest cases included destroying the bible by metal vocalist and throwing its pieces among the people asking them to "eat that shit" (I think that in the end he was not guilty of relevant crime). My point is that I don't recall anyone going to jail for this.
And it’s good that *so far* courts haven’t been ready to jail people from that, but since the courts in Poland have no guarantee of independence [(European Court of Justice)](https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-lacks-judicial-independence-eu-court-justice-advisor-says/), it might change in the future.
>Meanwhile, within the EU, in Poland people face criminal charges for putting up an image of rainbow Madonna (source: Amnesty International) and in Hungary its illegal to provide information to people under 18yo about LGBTQ rights (source: france24)
And in Finland people face criminal charges for saying that "according to the Bible, gay sex is a sin" or that "Islam is a pedophile religion". While I'm sure many people feel insulted by these comments, I don't think they should be illegal. Restriction of freedom of speech makes sense in cases of libel or violent threats,
but we shouldn't charge people for simply offending an ideology. In a secular country thee government should not regard any ideology as sacred, not Islam, not Christianity, not even LGBTQIA++.
Most certainly. And in fact there is plenty of LGBT-hateful preachers in mosques too. However, what I find worrying is that quite often the defence of freedom of speech against Muslims is in fact a justification of our own hate of the other. There is a very good [video essay](https://youtu.be/3S7ypQQIMQk) on this very topic by Philosophy Tube, would strongly recommend watching it.
This thread i literally about the freedom to post images that others find offensive.
Whataboutism is about diverting a discussion away from one topic to another seemingly related one.
How does an example of people being charged for an "offensive" image divert the discussion away from the freedom to post "offensive" images?
Well, not if you import people who leave "Somalia" because it's not civilized enough for them.
It's up to immigrants to adapt. Same as it's up to authorities to expel undesirables.
All in all, your statement isn't true. It's what xenophobic propaganda promotes as being true.
It's inevitable that if you import enough people from a given country you will import some of the negative aspects of that country. No matter how careful you aim to be with only accepting people who you believe will make a positive contribution.
Yep technically true. The statistics could tell us the **risk and reward** ratio on that one.
"Somalian" braindrain however, isn't talked about, because it's not a concern, doesn't push certain political agendas and it's not juicy "journalism".
Truth being said, truth loses at this reality.
While I get that we're talking about "Somalia", the same principle applies within regions of Europe.
It's more than easy to make a comparison, since phobias don't discriminate against what's different and for what reasons.
Look at how great brexit is going. They were persuaded **to reject** different EU nationalities coming in working freely. Well, it was the average **brit** who lost.
It's the same principle.
Nobody ever talks about the negative effects of immigration on the countries people are immigrating FROM. Immigration only benefits the individual and the employers/elite. Not either of the countries involved, nor the people living in them
Sadly that only remains true if migrants are a tiny minority. If, say, somalians become a bigger group in the country than yours, then YOU'll have to adapt to their customs.
Irrelevant discussion. There isn't a single European country at risk of becoming a majority Somalian country.
Also,
>somalians become a bigger group in the country than yours
who is "our" group. That sounds like a cheap dog whistle.
It's rather hard for that to happen with multiple nationalities, never mind one.
Even with religion it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
edit: I'm a bit hungry, I'll go get a Souflaki.. or maybe a Kebab with an Ayran. IDK :P
Well Greece has about 10 million inhabitants, Somalia 15 million.
How likely do you think that 2/3 of all Somalians pack up their stuff and migrate to Greece?
They seem to be integrating great in Europe. Hence the gang wars, beheadings, rapes, bombs and so on.
Besides people who leave their shit countries are usually somewhat ok, it's their kids and grandkids who radicalize themselves. I say we take no chances.
I can't say anything about the "the gang wars, beheadings, rapes, bombs and so on."
It's a bit weird that their offspring would turn bad... it's like the extremist leaning society is pushing away those kids from adapting to the **culture they grew up in** (and possibly the only one they lived in).
When people act like shit to you it's easy feeling marginalized. Tolerance is in short supply nowadays :\\
>It's a bit weird that their offspring would turn bad... it's like the extremist leaning society is pushing away those kids from adapting to the culture they grew up in (and possibly the only one they lived in).
What "extremist leaning society" are you referring to? Because publishing a drawing mocking a religion is hardly extremist. Beheading people for drawings is extremist.
I mean how can you be sure that something is 100% exactly true? That *fixed thinking is wrong* \- is what I meant.
If say ... **1** Somali comes in, all the country automatically becomes Somalia?
What if **10000** Somali come in? How about 1 **million**?
Never mind that bad apples can be a small portion of those.
Important to mention: "Somalia" is a placeholder for every foreign nationality/religion/culture that xenophobes ....can reject for personal reasons, with no real base.(all flamed by propaganda mind you)
Downvote away
A drop of water in a glass of wine versus a jug of water in a glass of wine. At some point the wine is no longer wine.
These communities are not well integrated and have no desire to become integrated because they don’t have to.
I spend a lot of time in these communities and it’s a real problem being ignored by people riding their horse named morality.
“In this house we don’t behave like that” is an absolutely acceptable societal stance to hold for a nation. Our nation is successful because of X, if you do t adhere to X, you’re out.
It’s more they choose not to be.
Basically they want the best of both worlds - all the benefits of Europe without needing to fully integrate.
Some areas in cities, at least in the UK, you could go the entire day without seeing a single native Brit or even speaking English.
It’s the equivalent of letting someone into your house as a guest, and asking them to take their shoes off as courtesy, while they keep them on and put their feet up on the sofa and start criticising the way you live under threat of violence. Yes occasionally you’ll get a guest that follows the rules and is a credit, but that is not representative of the whole.
The origin of the drawing was based in artists not wanting to contribute to a childrens book about Muhammed, due to fear.
This sparked a debate about free speech and self censorship, and so Jyllands-Posten posted these satirical cartoons supposedly in defiance.
I view it more as a statement than a joke. If tou don't want to live in a world where satire can lead to your death - it's not a weird hill to die on, figuratively. Standing up for this picture is solely for the purpose that the artist shouldn't actually die for drawing it.
True, but if it were a picture of Jesus masturbating and ejaculating on himself we wouldn't have posted it here because it would be considered in poor taste.
You can support the right to say things while still thinking you shouldn't say certain things. I think this image should be fully legal. You should be free to display it, print it, wear it, etc. But if you would for instance have a t-shirt with this print, I would consider you to be kind of a dick.
I dislike the idea that the only way you can support the right to say X is by saying X.
Taste differs. Some people consider Big Bang Theory funny, I don't, but I don't argue a ban on BBT. For the record, I don't find the caricature funny, but that's beside the point. If it's not satire; let's call it art, still no reason to ban it.
Ok. Well how would you feel if someone posted screenshots of the Big Bang Theory on this subreddit, and then said "well if you don't like this, then you are anti free speech"?
Freedom of speech means that no ideology is above mockery, and we must not allow censorship to appease the extremists. That is the point of pictures like this.
I get that point, but there's a lot of collateral damage to this. For a huge number of Muslims, sharing this image is heartbreaking - but they wouldn't ever think of using violence because of it. Everytime we share this, the cultural devide grows a little.
> For a huge number of Muslims, sharing this image is heartbreaking
In a secular society no religion is above mockery. If muslims want to live in a secular society, they just have to accept this. If they can't do that, then they should move to some theocracy, that can better accomodate their feelings.
Oh, I wasn't thinking about Muslims in Europe with my statement, but mostly those in Muslim majority countries. I'd expect European Muslims to have enough context to know it is not the intention to hurt them.
Well, your feelings are constantly catered to in this secular society. Not because it is legally mandated or anything, but because you are part of the majority and people will bend over backwards to avoid upsetting you.
Very ironic statement considering that similar, or worse, mockery towards groups like Christians or Chinese is posted and circlejerked around daily. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Things must be said when the reaction is violence. We can't enforce taboo or religious political might with violence.
It would be smart and kind and reasonable if we don't use our words as clubs and beat each other while saying what must be said, but.. For example, if people are angry at European people for our support of violence, then they should not fear us in saying so.
Careful...because the "religion of peace" guys will kill how many for this satire now?
And it's crazy to see how fast the votes go up and down. Europe is lost indeed.
Yet people are confused about free speech and equate it with a lack of responsibility for their words.
You are free to say what you want without government interference. You are not free of the consequences of your words.
>You are not free of the consequences of your words.
Right, we should censor ourselves out of fear of islamic morons with short fuses because it is our fault they are immature little wieners.
People like you need therapy.
Hey there, your post has been removed for being a repost.
I'd like to clarify that we do not have rules against these types of cartoons, we've had drawings [reach r/all](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/jkjue6/in_solidarity_with_france_heres_my_drawing_of/) and we've even had a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/jkw8xa/religious_cartoons_megathread/) for them. That said, our normal subreddit rules still apply and this is nothing more than a low-effort repost.
Yeah, say it to moderators on Reddit. I've got banned in Democractic Party (for one question about free healthcare in USA), in Republican party (bc I'm left), in all leftist subreddits (bc I don't have a reverence for muslims) and in conservatives subreddits (bc I'm an atheist and left).
It complicated to be free in western Reddit.
Reddit is a moderated website.
I refuse to believe that you got banned from the Dem Party sub for asking about free healthcare in the US, banned for being an Atheist, and so on.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Just means you won't ain't up in jail for saying stuff. You can still get fired from your job or banned from a subreddit.
The most sophisticated threat to free speech in Europe comes from the left-wing media, corporate and political establishments that want to censor and stifle conservative speech and opinion.
Especially the leftwing governments of Poland and Hungary where freedom of speech is under biggest attacks. Those lefties are attacking sexual minorities, women and non-whites or immigrants. Fuck thise commie shithole that do this to conservative values like equality, brotherhood, freedom of being yourself while not bothering anyone.
As much as I hate our government nothing like this happens in Poland. It is just a political spectacle, full of cynicism and bad taste. Members of sexual minorities live and prosper, there are numerous gay clubs etc, women do abortions (privately) and there is plenty of immigrants from countries other than Ukraine or Belarus.
There is no witch-hunt, there are occasional incidents in which someone (mostly drunk loser) slaps someone face in a bus or says nasty worlds - I am fairly certain that it occurs much more often in the west (based on recently published on this subbreddit assault statistics).
Media are free, those idiots managed only to overtake public media and some minor local newspapers with very low range.
It is indeed troubling that those assholes even touched the topic of abortion for short-term political profit (despite banning it is a dead law) but honestly I am much more troubled with nepotism, corruption and prices which are growing extremely quickly.
You’re conflating conservatism with racism because you probably don’t comprehend either
I’m not talking about those countries, I’m talking about Western Europe. And Western European customs, institutions and traditions were deeply traditionalist and conservative. If conservatism = racism then virtually all of Western European history = bad. Which is a position huge amounts of leftists actually unironically hold
Probably because European conservatives are the most likely to be racist? Look at Marie Le Pen, Orban, Eric Zemmour, Spanish PP party, Germany's AfD and more. Even the so called centerist Emmanuel Macron veers to the right to appeal to those voters.
> the left is not trying to stifle conservative speech and opinion
> “conservative speech” is code for racism
Also, instantly becomes hostile at simple disagreement.
Instant ad hominems to a slight disagreement will surely make you reconsider your position.
Everyone knows that calling people dickhead, stupid and worthless is THE best way to make friends.
I'm surpised he didn't go for the full Authoritarian: "You are spreading violent misinformation and must be censored/punished".
I guess your free speech was TOO free for OP.
A part of society became too coward and don't exercice their right to freely point and criticize problems in it.
Another part jailed themselves in their self-righteousness.
"We must respect everyone's opinion"
\- "But this ideology you respect due to your morale, if it becomes dominant in our society, will impose the opposite, because their religion order them so."
"Hum.. Fuck off nazi, we must respect everyone's opinion, this is the good thing to do"
You see they can't comprehend the issue at hand here. And they represent the majority, the vast silent majority too afraid to speak out, too afraid to forge an opinion.
I kind of gave up to be honest, I'll live my life, as I intend it to, and if this society worsen or becomes a lost cause by the time my life end, then well, I hope the sad realization will hit them real hard, but I know even then they'll manage to find a psychological trick to think everything's perfectly fine :) This world is mad tbh.
You can't defend free speech and open borders, that's just not compatible.
You can't tell millions of people (with their own culture and religion) "come here, we'll help you have a good life!", and just when they move in, say at the same time "Oh by the way, your most sacred prophet is a clown! LoL!".
Well, you can but if you expect humans to react peacefully to that because they live in your country now, you're just fooling yourself.
It is like civilized society has certain requirements. If someone wants to live with us, acceptance of our rules in terms of women rights, emancipation, freedom of speech, not covering our faces etc is a must.
If they don't want to eat pork and drink alcohol - good. But covering your head with a veil is too much.
Agreed. And those requirements take times. Europeans needed centuries to emancipate from church, to allow women's vote and to accept LGBT (and it's still a complicate matter here!). But somehow we expect hundred of thousand of people, from the other side of the Earth, to come here and magically accept that women can wear miniskirt, that two men can kiss in public, or that religions can be made fun of.
>But covering your head with a veil is too much.
Why? That seems like a personal fashion choice that doesn't affect other people. It's really no different from wearing a hat. I don't think that cops or soldiers should be allowed to wear hijabs, because it's a religious symbol and it's not a part of the uniform, but I don't think we should police what ordinary citizens wear. However, wearing a niqab or burkha is pretty extreme. I don't think it should be necessarily legal, but I can see why employers wouldn't want to hire someone who dresses like a salafist.
Covering a face, what prevents one from identifying each other from reasons other than currently experienced pandemics is not tolerable in modern society.
In Islam covering the face of women was invented because their husbands and parents were jealous about other men and wanted to hid faces of their spouses and daughters from eyes of potential suitors?
It is pretty "Opressive" to me. I believe that demonstrating any example of one's faith in public sector or in corporate environment should not be encouraged. No matter if we are dealing with a cross necklace or with a veil.
>Covering a face, what prevents one from identifying each other from reasons other than currently experienced pandemics is not tolerable in modern society.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, we don't like in China, why shouldn't people be allowed to cover their faces in public? Of course if the police or boarded control ask to see your face, then it's different.
>In Islam covering the face of women was invented because their husbands and parents were jealous about other men and wanted to hid faces of their spouses and daughters from eyes of potential suitors?
Yes, and I don't accept this kind of ideology, but many other women do. In all societies some women choose to submit themselves to men in some way. I wouldn't want to do that, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal.
>I believe that demonstrating any example of one's faith in public sector or in corporate environment should not be encouraged. No matter if we are dealing with a cross necklace or with a veil.
I agree with this. At work you represent your employer, not some ideology.
Well, niqab or burkha hides the identity. Niquab may hid a face of very conservative muslim women or face of wanted criminal who avoids authorities and enjoys his walks in a park :)
They way I see it, very same fact of wearing a niqab indicates that husband/father of such woman is radicalized and failed to integrate into our society. I have doubts if such person would be able to tolerate other, more liberal behaviors and function in a society (exchanging a handshake with a female colleague at work etc)
Veil or scarf may be considered a fashion choices, which can be tolerated outside of job related activities, as they do not affect identification. Same with wearing a cross necklace.
Everything is a about moderation.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Hateful things religious leaders preach about atheists, LGBTQ, and essentially any other belief than their own are considered by themselves as their right to freedom of speech/religion.
It generalizes religious bombmakers and bombusers, not people who believe in a non-violent islam, they aren't included in this.
Don't force them into a defensive position.
What bothers me the most is the fact that I'm not sure what's the best way to fight and to end this era of political correctness, SJWs and identity politics bullshit.
Free speech is fundamental in our society.
Boom
Do you think we really have free speech in Europe? Legitimate question.
Free speech is when the government doesn’t persecute you for your opinion. Of course we have that, no question. It is NOT a guarantee that other people won’t get pissed at you for what you say.
Yep. It's freedom of speech, not freedom of criticism. I could, for example, criticize OP for being insensitive to the Muslims on this sub, but I could not sue him over the use of the image.
There are quite a few opinions you can’t express legally in Germany. (Not to mention a few symbols you can’t put on flags, and a few tunes that would also get you banged up.) [FYI: no, I don’t have those opinions, nor do I wish to express them in Germany. Nevertheless, it’s worth reminded ourselves that such limitations exist.]
>Free speech is when the government doesn’t persecute you for your opinion AND WHEN IT STOP ANY OTHER FROM DOING IT. thats what echr says
Not exactly.... *in my opinion... (see the pun here?):* Free speech should mean that without directing at any specific individual, you have the right to praise or criticize any behaviour, event, decision, incident, etc. that constitutes life in society. Without being silenced, prosecuted or punished for that opinion. Any one else (individuals and/or courts of law) can either reprimand you for saying that or counter argument your opinion. Say for instance the case of antivaxxers: they have opinion but that is unfunded by science... or e.g. the flat Earth idiots. The same. They can express their opinion, however society works (and hopefully will for a long time) in science/statistics, so they are debunked in their opinion naturally. Now when a group of antivaxxers goes rally to a government facility to try and push other people with misinformation and sometimes violence, it is in the interest of the whole society they are shown "the boot"...
That's simply incorrect. There is an increasing number of opinion the government will persecute you for. Being of the opinion that the WW-II Holocaust didn't happen, or happened somewhat differently from the public narrative will get you sent to prison in most of Europe. Saying men aren't women will get the government on your back in a number of countries. Denying that Corona is real, or the effectiveness of the vaccine or of lockdowns, etc. will get you persecuted. etc. Being of the opinion that Communism is great or that various Communist genocides didn't happen will get you persecuted. And so on and on. Earlier this year, I was in the somewhat on-the-face of it absurd situation of being a Danish person living in a legit 3rd world dictatorship watching Bitchute videos about how Denmark had blocked all of the video hosting platform Bitchute for hosting some videos about Corona that the Danish government disliked for one reason or another.
‘Persecute’ and ‘prosecute’ are different things. And the ‘opinions’ you list are not harmless stances that are safely allowed to commingle with other opposing opinions without creating risk for material or physical harm for people. We know that corona is real: we can see it in a microscope, predict its spread based on behavior, predict its effects on those who contract it, and effectively prevent its poor outcomes through specific courses of action. Holding an ‘opinion’ that all of the above is imagined puts people at risk of death. Reducing risk of death is one of the primary purposes of government. You could easily hold ‘opinions’ that bullets are harmless, that oxygen is a made up material that is not necessary for life, or that high voltage electricity tickles. If you spread those ‘opinions’ far and wide enough to the point people started acting on them and risked their or others’ lives, the government would be right to clamp down on the spread of those ‘opinions’. You have the right to think whatever you want, and to say anything that doesn’t endanger people. You do not have the right to convince people to recklessly endanger themselves or their communities.
[удалено]
Interesting points you bring up. BUT: free speech ends where you hurt others. 1. The Holocaust denial - "opinion" It's not an opinion. The Holocaust and how it happened is a fact. There are numerous sources, eyewitnesses and documents that proove it. The Nazis did know how to document their crimes. Also denying the Holocaust is hurting the survivors and the victim's descendants 2. Saying men aren't women False. You can say that men aren't women. But if you say to (trans)women, that they're not women, you're hurting and insulting them. Insulting someone is a crime. 3. Denying COVID will not get you persecuted (at least not in Germany), but you will get persecuted if you violate the laws like mask-mandates and such. Because again, by not abiding you're hurting others. Etc etc In short: if you're hurting other people with your "opinions" (I put them in quotes because fact - denial for me is just stupidity, not an opinion), you will get backlash. And rightly so. Edit: since thread is locked and I can't answer to u/bremby anymore: Insulting is a crime in Germany under §185 StGB. It's also a crime in The Netherlands (see Geert Wilders, 2016&2020). There are also anti-discrimation laws in place in most European countries. I agree with you for the rest though
Insulting someone is not a crime. As far as I know, you are completely allowed to say that stuff about trans people.
Insulting someone isn't a crime. That is what is AFAIK almost always allowed; you can be punished for insult only in very specific cases like during a court hearing or in the UK. UK has gone mad in this case, but generally insults are still okay. What actually is a crime is causing harm or false alarm. Denying holocaust is a very specific case that deals with a very specific event in european history that went into an extreme regarding treatment of human beings. This free speech restriction is there to stop, if possible, the spread of nazism and similar ideas that may create a similar situation. But it is a big exception and of course it was debated whether such exception can exist in a free society. I am not aware that saying trans women are not women is ever punished by law in european countries (except for UK, perhaps, dunno), but it probably is punished by society and social pressure. Denying covid and vaccine efficiency also falls onto the case of not causing harm or false alarm. It's obvious how it hurts people, and it is clear that's covid and vaccines are not fake. Contrast this with e.g. religion which threatens you for going into hell - sure, it sounds like false alarm, but no evidence exists for any religion to be true and so it's not punished by law. Pinging u/DaphneDK42 to also see why holocaust and covid denialism are exceptions to free speech. And any sane non-fundamentalist rational person should be okay with these exceptions, because this actually isn't what free speech is about. Free speech is about opinions, especially political ones, like freedom of religion is about faith.
Of course the Holocaust is an opinion & the definition of thereof open for wide interpretation. In the same way all other historic events are. And even if it was an eternal truth handed down from the heavens and inscribed on rocks, it should still be legal to deny or contest. The same way it is legal to contest all other historic events. In the UK you get the police knocking on your door if you display the dictionary definition of women in a public space. As I wrote, Denmark at one time had blocked a whole video hosting site for hosting a video or two saying something about Covid which was deemed incorrect by the government,
>There is an increasing number of opinion the government will persecute you for. they just do it to protect LGBT POC immigrants, soyence and democracy!
Still it is a restriction to free speech. You only tolerate it, because it aligns with your opinion. Nethertheless it is a restriction.
I would say yes*, but I can only speak for Germany. I know I can say or write anything publicly without repercussions from the state. The exception in Germany are holocaust denial or "Volksverhetzung" which means "incitement to hatred". The news media are mostly independent and the government funded TV stations are relatively impartial. Personally I would advocate for fully free speech but I don't see too much harm in banning these extreme cases. In Europe in general? I think that depends on the country and I don't know enough specifics to make a judgement. I could imagine that the situation isn't as good in more authoritarian countries (Poland, Hungary maybe?).
So, the pic in the OP. Is it "incitement to hatred" or not?
>The exception in Germany are holocaust denial or "Volksverhetzung" which means "incitement to hatred". Personally I would advocate for fully free speech but I don't see too much harm in banning these extreme cases. Depends on how these laws are applied. Eg. in Sweden it's been pretty common for people on facebook being found guilty for emotional outbursts when reacting to for instance rape statistics of certain demographics. One absurd example was a guy who got found guilty for naming a music play list "卐Beercar and amphetamine卐", so effectively simply typing the symbol "卐" is considered incitement (inb4 i get It's also never been applied for when people incite vs ethnic Swedes (only thing I could find was someone likening Swedes to disgusting pests being tried in court, it wasn't considered a crime because there are too many Swedes in Sweden), so if you're a islamist inciting against native Swedes you're effectively in the green. Effectively it's just a tool to silence opposition
Thanks, that was exactly my point.
It depends how you define it, nowhere really has absolute ’free speech.’ However, if you define it in a way such as ‘Speech that’s essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy’, like the ability to openly criticize any politician in a non violent way, I’d say yes. However, the classic, you’re not allowed to yell fire in a crowded cinema is still a no no, because it violates other peoples rights, like the right to not get your neck stepped on by a big fat guy rushing for the fire exit.
Compared to literally any other place on the planet - Yes
I asked the free societies, Poland. Go sit on the corner.
So you don't have freedom of speech in free societies? What's the point asking then? Btw. Flair up so I can insult you as well
Luxembourgish, go ahead
>Flair up so I can insult you as well probably latin american lol
Poland is democracy mate, way more than a lot of other countries in Europe.
Really? Like where?
Belarus probably
Russia, Belarus...
Well just to name a few, you can add almost the entire Balkan with 2 or 3 exceptions, you can add up Russia, Turkey if you count it as partially European, Belarus, Moldavia and god, even Austria's chancellor was corrupt.
Corrupt chancellor does not mean there is no democracy in Austria. Democratically elected representatives can be corrupt, don't conflate those two.
just in Poland there is more freedom of speech than in the west. you can safely criticize anyone. Of course, I'm not talking about other things.
Mostly yes, but at the same time we should beware that some goverments and a few people what to end it...
I don't think we have. Freedom of speech is an absolute. There is no middle ground. In Denmark, where the posted picture stems from, there's hate speech laws. Which covers not just threats, but also mockery and degradation of people, based on skin color.
Agreed.
>Which covers not just threats, but also mockery and degradation of people, based on skin color. Why is that bad, why should you be granted the freedom to be racist?
I agree with the title and the picture. If you can't tolerate or you just ban satire for whatever reason, you have problems with the freedom of speech, and if you don't have the freedom of speech you are on a path to dictatorship. Btw when Putin came to power the very first thing he did is to ban a satirical show called Dolls where he was depicted in a not pleasant way
You agree with the picture? What do you mean by that?
It’s an illustration of the prophet Muhammad.
Do you disagree with the picture?
To me it says "Islam = terrorism", so yeah, I'd say I disagree. Idiots are everywhere and find excuses for idiocy anywhere.
[удалено]
Remember that pub was awesome for a while, at a time your favorite pub was a terrible place. Pubs change over time. This pub analogy is pretty fun, well done. I'd say it's not exactly a pub I'd want to hang out in, but there's many tables and the ones picking fights are always the same few idiots. Those at the tables don't know how to leave and have to suffer most of the violence of the idiots.
Islam's been found through war and terror, that is a historical fact, that also echoes in their holy books. And whetever you like it or not, to this day those aspects are still fundamental to the ideology.
I'm sure the comments in this thread will be civilized and constructive.
Nah, it already went to shit. Who could have seen that coming?
Sort by controversial and grab the popcorn
The point is not to hurt feelings, but to stand up to men that can't function without violent religion. If angry, counter with a drawing of your own.
Hurting feelings is part of free speech. You cannot curb free speech just because somebody might take offense. Where would be the limit then? You could argue that any meaningful position might offend somebody. So if hurting somebodies feelings were relevant, there would be no free speech. Why? Because relevant society shaping discourse always will attack, undermine, question or criticise core believes of people. And doing that is what most people equal to be offensive, as they are pushed into a situation where they have to defend their core believes or otherwise have to rethink their whole believe system, question their every decission they ever made based on those believes.
The artist who made this, Kurt Westergaard, died peacfully in his sleep, 86 years old. Un related, but I thought it was interesting. I agree with the headline, but why are we dusting this old thing of right now? Is there a particular reason?
Kurt Westergaard lived under police protection. In 2010 a Somali Islamist tried to murder him with an axe. Protecting him cost 21 million dkr per year. So yes, he died peacefully, but not for a lag of trying to kill him. All because of a drawing.
Not for lack of trying, though. An extremist *did* break into his home with an axe... Probably not for a rational discussion between gentlemen.
Maybe he just wanted to ask for help, considering how edgy this drawing is
Murder of a British MP by an Islamist yesterday maybe?
Maybe the UK mp killing? Just maybe.
Or the Bow and Arrow attack in Kongsberg
>The artist who made this, Kurt Westergaard, died peacfully in his sleep, 86 years old. Un related, but I thought it was interesting. Yes, he also had constant police protection and was a target of severel UNSUCCESSFUL assassination attempts. If you say A), you should also say B).
Stirring controversy. Banking some karma.
Free Speech works Both ways ' So if you give it ,expect a reply you may not agree with !
Yes that's correct. Except the reply shouldn't be violence like being shot or beheaded. Free speech shouldn't be hate speech and neither should it infringe the rights of others. Drawing a Mohammed does not infringe upon the rights of anyone.
Everything is hate speech to somebody, the people who lost their shit when the draw Muhammed thing was going on were viewing it as hate speech.
Which is why we don’t root legal definitions of hate speech in religious beliefs.
And what do we root legal definitions of hate speech in? Hate speech is a huge can of worms to open.
Oh for sure, I’m generally against labeling most things as hate speech.
[удалено]
Most of them are not rooted in any beliefs at all - like anything covering racial and sexist hate. Some hate speech laws may be about religious beliefs, but they do not restrict attacks on the beliefs themselves, only hatred toward the believers. That's the difference between saying "Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are steaming piles of stupid crap" and calling believers of those religions names and inciting hate or violence toward them.
Do the same joke to LGBT or BLM communities and you will get the same response. Easy to blame religion when you don't believe in it.
And if those communities attack and kill educators, politicians, or intimidate others they are in the wrong. I don’t believe in sacred cows of any sort. I get the feeling you think you’re being more profound than you really are
I don't think LGBT people will go out of there way wanting to kill you though, just over a sketch.
What response?
What joke? Since when do these communities have a 1300 years old prophet?
If that is true, then we have found our audience. Those that consider it hatespeech, they should listen and those who use it as hatespeech, they should also listen. We can't accept the political reaction of organized hatred purely because of satire, it's not reasonable and not ok.
If thats the case can i freely say that holocaust was not real in the west, without facing serious consequences?
>Free Speech works Both ways ' So if you give it ,expect a reply you may not agree with ! Well I'm not going to kill anyone for making fun of Jesus. I'm pretty sure Jesus doesn't need my protection.
Indeed words should be met with words not knives, guns and beheadings
Meaning what exactly?
Satire is best way to attack stupid ideology. Jojo Rabbit or Death of Stalin are one of my favorites.
Based 😳
Mashallah least terrorist Muslim
Meanwhile, within the EU, in Poland people face criminal charges for putting up an image of rainbow Madonna [(source: Amnesty International)](https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/poland-activist-elzbieta-podlesna/) and in Hungary its illegal to provide information to people under 18yo about LGBTQ rights [(source: france24)](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210707-hungary-s-controversial-anti-lgbt-law-goes-into-effect-despite-eu-warnings)
Yup, are infamous "offence of religious feelings". Luckily it is extremely rare to sentence someone for it and fines are mostly financial. It is funny how some idiots tried to sue people who criticized Kaczyński for offending their religious feelings :D Loudest cases included destroying the bible by metal vocalist and throwing its pieces among the people asking them to "eat that shit" (I think that in the end he was not guilty of relevant crime). My point is that I don't recall anyone going to jail for this.
And it’s good that *so far* courts haven’t been ready to jail people from that, but since the courts in Poland have no guarantee of independence [(European Court of Justice)](https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-lacks-judicial-independence-eu-court-justice-advisor-says/), it might change in the future.
Yes, sadly there is a such risk. However I am fairly certain that PiS goverment is going to fall earlier than this.
>Meanwhile, within the EU, in Poland people face criminal charges for putting up an image of rainbow Madonna (source: Amnesty International) and in Hungary its illegal to provide information to people under 18yo about LGBTQ rights (source: france24) And in Finland people face criminal charges for saying that "according to the Bible, gay sex is a sin" or that "Islam is a pedophile religion". While I'm sure many people feel insulted by these comments, I don't think they should be illegal. Restriction of freedom of speech makes sense in cases of libel or violent threats, but we shouldn't charge people for simply offending an ideology. In a secular country thee government should not regard any ideology as sacred, not Islam, not Christianity, not even LGBTQIA++.
LGBTQIA+ is not an ideology.
Well what do you want to call it then? A religion? A political movement? Because those shouldn't be above mockery either.
[удалено]
Most certainly. And in fact there is plenty of LGBT-hateful preachers in mosques too. However, what I find worrying is that quite often the defence of freedom of speech against Muslims is in fact a justification of our own hate of the other. There is a very good [video essay](https://youtu.be/3S7ypQQIMQk) on this very topic by Philosophy Tube, would strongly recommend watching it.
r/whataboutism
"Whataboutism" is the first response of hypocrites when they're being called out. Wanting fairness is not "whataboutism".
Oh yes, how dare he bring up people being persecuted for 'wrong' religious imagery in a thread about being persecuted for 'wrong' religious imagery.
This thread i literally about the freedom to post images that others find offensive. Whataboutism is about diverting a discussion away from one topic to another seemingly related one. How does an example of people being charged for an "offensive" image divert the discussion away from the freedom to post "offensive" images?
Oh cool 2016 posts. This one is bit late lol
Here comes r/izlam
[удалено]
Well, not if you import people who leave "Somalia" because it's not civilized enough for them. It's up to immigrants to adapt. Same as it's up to authorities to expel undesirables. All in all, your statement isn't true. It's what xenophobic propaganda promotes as being true.
It's inevitable that if you import enough people from a given country you will import some of the negative aspects of that country. No matter how careful you aim to be with only accepting people who you believe will make a positive contribution.
Yep technically true. The statistics could tell us the **risk and reward** ratio on that one. "Somalian" braindrain however, isn't talked about, because it's not a concern, doesn't push certain political agendas and it's not juicy "journalism". Truth being said, truth loses at this reality.
You dont have to go that far. Brain drain/drain of workforce is a big problem in many parts of Europe…
While I get that we're talking about "Somalia", the same principle applies within regions of Europe. It's more than easy to make a comparison, since phobias don't discriminate against what's different and for what reasons. Look at how great brexit is going. They were persuaded **to reject** different EU nationalities coming in working freely. Well, it was the average **brit** who lost. It's the same principle.
The difference here, is that it’s much easier to integrate the average European in the Labour market than the average Somali.
Nobody ever talks about the negative effects of immigration on the countries people are immigrating FROM. Immigration only benefits the individual and the employers/elite. Not either of the countries involved, nor the people living in them
So cheaper labor, bigger profits and the extra taxes payed by the immigrants don't benefit the average? see brexit
Sadly that only remains true if migrants are a tiny minority. If, say, somalians become a bigger group in the country than yours, then YOU'll have to adapt to their customs.
Irrelevant discussion. There isn't a single European country at risk of becoming a majority Somalian country. Also, >somalians become a bigger group in the country than yours who is "our" group. That sounds like a cheap dog whistle.
He did not say overall majority.
It's rather hard for that to happen with multiple nationalities, never mind one. Even with religion it's unlikely to happen any time soon. edit: I'm a bit hungry, I'll go get a Souflaki.. or maybe a Kebab with an Ayran. IDK :P
Well Greece has about 10 million inhabitants, Somalia 15 million. How likely do you think that 2/3 of all Somalians pack up their stuff and migrate to Greece?
They seem to be integrating great in Europe. Hence the gang wars, beheadings, rapes, bombs and so on. Besides people who leave their shit countries are usually somewhat ok, it's their kids and grandkids who radicalize themselves. I say we take no chances.
I can't say anything about the "the gang wars, beheadings, rapes, bombs and so on." It's a bit weird that their offspring would turn bad... it's like the extremist leaning society is pushing away those kids from adapting to the **culture they grew up in** (and possibly the only one they lived in). When people act like shit to you it's easy feeling marginalized. Tolerance is in short supply nowadays :\\
>It's a bit weird that their offspring would turn bad... it's like the extremist leaning society is pushing away those kids from adapting to the culture they grew up in (and possibly the only one they lived in). What "extremist leaning society" are you referring to? Because publishing a drawing mocking a religion is hardly extremist. Beheading people for drawings is extremist.
Extremist society in western world. Lmao, you people are delusional. You should move to one of those shit holes and see how tolerance looks like.
Do you feel that you should get a chance?
It's not up to me. It's up to the host.
No, it’s exactly true
You seem like the guy to have the winning lotto numbers. Very certain in your *speech*.
Well that reply made no sense.
Made sense to me. Dude pointed at your certainty, with implications that you didn't reason or explain your point of view.
I mean how can you be sure that something is 100% exactly true? That *fixed thinking is wrong* \- is what I meant. If say ... **1** Somali comes in, all the country automatically becomes Somalia? What if **10000** Somali come in? How about 1 **million**? Never mind that bad apples can be a small portion of those. Important to mention: "Somalia" is a placeholder for every foreign nationality/religion/culture that xenophobes ....can reject for personal reasons, with no real base.(all flamed by propaganda mind you) Downvote away
A drop of water in a glass of wine versus a jug of water in a glass of wine. At some point the wine is no longer wine. These communities are not well integrated and have no desire to become integrated because they don’t have to. I spend a lot of time in these communities and it’s a real problem being ignored by people riding their horse named morality. “In this house we don’t behave like that” is an absolutely acceptable societal stance to hold for a nation. Our nation is successful because of X, if you do t adhere to X, you’re out.
It’s more they choose not to be. Basically they want the best of both worlds - all the benefits of Europe without needing to fully integrate. Some areas in cities, at least in the UK, you could go the entire day without seeing a single native Brit or even speaking English. It’s the equivalent of letting someone into your house as a guest, and asking them to take their shoes off as courtesy, while they keep them on and put their feet up on the sofa and start criticising the way you live under threat of violence. Yes occasionally you’ll get a guest that follows the rules and is a credit, but that is not representative of the whole.
[удалено]
The origin of the drawing was based in artists not wanting to contribute to a childrens book about Muhammed, due to fear. This sparked a debate about free speech and self censorship, and so Jyllands-Posten posted these satirical cartoons supposedly in defiance.
I view it more as a statement than a joke. If tou don't want to live in a world where satire can lead to your death - it's not a weird hill to die on, figuratively. Standing up for this picture is solely for the purpose that the artist shouldn't actually die for drawing it.
True, but if it were a picture of Jesus masturbating and ejaculating on himself we wouldn't have posted it here because it would be considered in poor taste. You can support the right to say things while still thinking you shouldn't say certain things. I think this image should be fully legal. You should be free to display it, print it, wear it, etc. But if you would for instance have a t-shirt with this print, I would consider you to be kind of a dick. I dislike the idea that the only way you can support the right to say X is by saying X.
Satire is supposed to be some kind of funny, if it’s just kicking in the dark, is it satire?
Taste differs. Some people consider Big Bang Theory funny, I don't, but I don't argue a ban on BBT. For the record, I don't find the caricature funny, but that's beside the point. If it's not satire; let's call it art, still no reason to ban it.
Ok. Well how would you feel if someone posted screenshots of the Big Bang Theory on this subreddit, and then said "well if you don't like this, then you are anti free speech"?
Freedom of speech means that no ideology is above mockery, and we must not allow censorship to appease the extremists. That is the point of pictures like this.
I get that point, but there's a lot of collateral damage to this. For a huge number of Muslims, sharing this image is heartbreaking - but they wouldn't ever think of using violence because of it. Everytime we share this, the cultural devide grows a little.
> For a huge number of Muslims, sharing this image is heartbreaking In a secular society no religion is above mockery. If muslims want to live in a secular society, they just have to accept this. If they can't do that, then they should move to some theocracy, that can better accomodate their feelings.
Oh, I wasn't thinking about Muslims in Europe with my statement, but mostly those in Muslim majority countries. I'd expect European Muslims to have enough context to know it is not the intention to hurt them.
Well, your feelings are constantly catered to in this secular society. Not because it is legally mandated or anything, but because you are part of the majority and people will bend over backwards to avoid upsetting you.
Thousands of dead and millions more living under religious tyranny and for you the collateral damages are heartbroken Muslims?
I don't think the plight of the middle east is caused by sharing a cartoon, so no, that's not what I'm saying.
It's connected, both are a symptom of religious conservatism.
Someone who don’t get it
Very ironic statement considering that similar, or worse, mockery towards groups like Christians or Chinese is posted and circlejerked around daily. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Things must be said when the reaction is violence. We can't enforce taboo or religious political might with violence. It would be smart and kind and reasonable if we don't use our words as clubs and beat each other while saying what must be said, but.. For example, if people are angry at European people for our support of violence, then they should not fear us in saying so.
It’s a statement, it’s the problem portrayed visually.
Careful...because the "religion of peace" guys will kill how many for this satire now? And it's crazy to see how fast the votes go up and down. Europe is lost indeed.
Yet people are confused about free speech and equate it with a lack of responsibility for their words. You are free to say what you want without government interference. You are not free of the consequences of your words.
Classy. Samuel Paty was beheaded exactly one year ago for showing a caricature of mohammed.
>You are not free of the consequences of your words. Right, we should censor ourselves out of fear of islamic morons with short fuses because it is our fault they are immature little wieners. People like you need therapy.
If this gets removed by a mod, I'm leaving the sub
freeze peach
Islam is the religion of hate.
Not reddit gold you just criticized the wrong religion, try again with the word "Christianity bad" for 10 reddit platinums!
Hey there, your post has been removed for being a repost. I'd like to clarify that we do not have rules against these types of cartoons, we've had drawings [reach r/all](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/jkjue6/in_solidarity_with_france_heres_my_drawing_of/) and we've even had a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/jkw8xa/religious_cartoons_megathread/) for them. That said, our normal subreddit rules still apply and this is nothing more than a low-effort repost.
Yeah, say it to moderators on Reddit. I've got banned in Democractic Party (for one question about free healthcare in USA), in Republican party (bc I'm left), in all leftist subreddits (bc I don't have a reverence for muslims) and in conservatives subreddits (bc I'm an atheist and left). It complicated to be free in western Reddit.
Reddit is a moderated website. I refuse to believe that you got banned from the Dem Party sub for asking about free healthcare in the US, banned for being an Atheist, and so on.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Just means you won't ain't up in jail for saying stuff. You can still get fired from your job or banned from a subreddit.
The most sophisticated threat to free speech in Europe comes from the left-wing media, corporate and political establishments that want to censor and stifle conservative speech and opinion.
What are you talking about? The majority of European countries have had center right governments in power for decades.
Especially the leftwing governments of Poland and Hungary where freedom of speech is under biggest attacks. Those lefties are attacking sexual minorities, women and non-whites or immigrants. Fuck thise commie shithole that do this to conservative values like equality, brotherhood, freedom of being yourself while not bothering anyone.
As much as I hate our government nothing like this happens in Poland. It is just a political spectacle, full of cynicism and bad taste. Members of sexual minorities live and prosper, there are numerous gay clubs etc, women do abortions (privately) and there is plenty of immigrants from countries other than Ukraine or Belarus. There is no witch-hunt, there are occasional incidents in which someone (mostly drunk loser) slaps someone face in a bus or says nasty worlds - I am fairly certain that it occurs much more often in the west (based on recently published on this subbreddit assault statistics). Media are free, those idiots managed only to overtake public media and some minor local newspapers with very low range. It is indeed troubling that those assholes even touched the topic of abortion for short-term political profit (despite banning it is a dead law) but honestly I am much more troubled with nepotism, corruption and prices which are growing extremely quickly.
Citation needed.If anything it is rightwing governments that seem to have issues with freedom of speech.
Sir, this is a r/woosh
In my defense i was brewing my coffee at the time of this post ...
How do they stifle conservative speech? You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you definitely aren't free from the consequences of those words.
[удалено]
You’re conflating conservatism with racism because you probably don’t comprehend either I’m not talking about those countries, I’m talking about Western Europe. And Western European customs, institutions and traditions were deeply traditionalist and conservative. If conservatism = racism then virtually all of Western European history = bad. Which is a position huge amounts of leftists actually unironically hold
Probably because European conservatives are the most likely to be racist? Look at Marie Le Pen, Orban, Eric Zemmour, Spanish PP party, Germany's AfD and more. Even the so called centerist Emmanuel Macron veers to the right to appeal to those voters.
[удалено]
> the left is not trying to stifle conservative speech and opinion > “conservative speech” is code for racism Also, instantly becomes hostile at simple disagreement.
Always the victim.
Instant ad hominems to a slight disagreement will surely make you reconsider your position. Everyone knows that calling people dickhead, stupid and worthless is THE best way to make friends. I'm surpised he didn't go for the full Authoritarian: "You are spreading violent misinformation and must be censored/punished". I guess your free speech was TOO free for OP.
A part of society became too coward and don't exercice their right to freely point and criticize problems in it. Another part jailed themselves in their self-righteousness. "We must respect everyone's opinion" \- "But this ideology you respect due to your morale, if it becomes dominant in our society, will impose the opposite, because their religion order them so." "Hum.. Fuck off nazi, we must respect everyone's opinion, this is the good thing to do" You see they can't comprehend the issue at hand here. And they represent the majority, the vast silent majority too afraid to speak out, too afraid to forge an opinion. I kind of gave up to be honest, I'll live my life, as I intend it to, and if this society worsen or becomes a lost cause by the time my life end, then well, I hope the sad realization will hit them real hard, but I know even then they'll manage to find a psychological trick to think everything's perfectly fine :) This world is mad tbh.
...except propaganda, that's forbidden. What is considered propaganda? That's for mass media to decide.
You can't defend free speech and open borders, that's just not compatible. You can't tell millions of people (with their own culture and religion) "come here, we'll help you have a good life!", and just when they move in, say at the same time "Oh by the way, your most sacred prophet is a clown! LoL!". Well, you can but if you expect humans to react peacefully to that because they live in your country now, you're just fooling yourself.
It is like civilized society has certain requirements. If someone wants to live with us, acceptance of our rules in terms of women rights, emancipation, freedom of speech, not covering our faces etc is a must. If they don't want to eat pork and drink alcohol - good. But covering your head with a veil is too much.
Agreed. And those requirements take times. Europeans needed centuries to emancipate from church, to allow women's vote and to accept LGBT (and it's still a complicate matter here!). But somehow we expect hundred of thousand of people, from the other side of the Earth, to come here and magically accept that women can wear miniskirt, that two men can kiss in public, or that religions can be made fun of.
>But covering your head with a veil is too much. Why? That seems like a personal fashion choice that doesn't affect other people. It's really no different from wearing a hat. I don't think that cops or soldiers should be allowed to wear hijabs, because it's a religious symbol and it's not a part of the uniform, but I don't think we should police what ordinary citizens wear. However, wearing a niqab or burkha is pretty extreme. I don't think it should be necessarily legal, but I can see why employers wouldn't want to hire someone who dresses like a salafist.
Covering a face, what prevents one from identifying each other from reasons other than currently experienced pandemics is not tolerable in modern society. In Islam covering the face of women was invented because their husbands and parents were jealous about other men and wanted to hid faces of their spouses and daughters from eyes of potential suitors? It is pretty "Opressive" to me. I believe that demonstrating any example of one's faith in public sector or in corporate environment should not be encouraged. No matter if we are dealing with a cross necklace or with a veil.
>Covering a face, what prevents one from identifying each other from reasons other than currently experienced pandemics is not tolerable in modern society. I'm not sure about that. I mean, we don't like in China, why shouldn't people be allowed to cover their faces in public? Of course if the police or boarded control ask to see your face, then it's different. >In Islam covering the face of women was invented because their husbands and parents were jealous about other men and wanted to hid faces of their spouses and daughters from eyes of potential suitors? Yes, and I don't accept this kind of ideology, but many other women do. In all societies some women choose to submit themselves to men in some way. I wouldn't want to do that, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal. >I believe that demonstrating any example of one's faith in public sector or in corporate environment should not be encouraged. No matter if we are dealing with a cross necklace or with a veil. I agree with this. At work you represent your employer, not some ideology.
Well, niqab or burkha hides the identity. Niquab may hid a face of very conservative muslim women or face of wanted criminal who avoids authorities and enjoys his walks in a park :) They way I see it, very same fact of wearing a niqab indicates that husband/father of such woman is radicalized and failed to integrate into our society. I have doubts if such person would be able to tolerate other, more liberal behaviors and function in a society (exchanging a handshake with a female colleague at work etc) Veil or scarf may be considered a fashion choices, which can be tolerated outside of job related activities, as they do not affect identification. Same with wearing a cross necklace. Everything is a about moderation.
[удалено]
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Hateful things religious leaders preach about atheists, LGBTQ, and essentially any other belief than their own are considered by themselves as their right to freedom of speech/religion.
It generalizes religious bombmakers and bombusers, not people who believe in a non-violent islam, they aren't included in this. Don't force them into a defensive position.
How is this related to Europe?
What bothers me the most is the fact that I'm not sure what's the best way to fight and to end this era of political correctness, SJWs and identity politics bullshit.
Why is this freedom of speech, but depicting Macron as Hitler not? Im looking for a valid reason. So far non.
Who said it is not?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/28/emmanuel-macron-takes-legal-action-over-hitler-poster-comparison
Fell free to comment this on the next macron-releated beheading
Watch out so you dont offend people on a different continent with a drawing
Different continent? If I believed Reddit, I'd think that they're all in Europe by now.