

SOPA would never happen in Europe - zeratul
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/european-high-court-rejects-internet-traffic-filtering-as-violation-of-fundamental-rights.ars

======
zeratul
Europe bans SOPA and airport XRAY scanners and yet neonazi parties get seats
in parliaments. Definitions of freedom and democracy in U.S. and Europe are
incongruent. If you lived at least ten years on both continents you'd
understand.

------
fpp
Don't worry - they are just waiting if it passes in the U.S. I would be
surprised if the various "usual suspects" & MPs in Europe don't already have a
European version of it ready "for discussion" and to be run through as new
law(s) e.g. next year during the London Olympics when the public is even
easier been distracted from things that will change their future lives.

------
Canada
Right, and Europe is not owned and controlled by the Banksters either.

------
durka_durka
Ah yes, Europe being that pristine example of freedom and democracy (much
better than police state USA). Just make sure you don't say anything racist or
xenophobic, or you might wind up in prison -->
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial>

~~~
raganwald
Where do I begin?

Laws against denying the holocaust are not equivalent to laws against
xenophobia or racism. You might be thinking of laws against hate speech.

Next, you’ll have to do a little more than just rant to convince me that laws
restricting hateful speech are somehow antithetical to “freedom and
democracy.”

Xenophobia and racism are pretty much as anti-democratic as you can get: If
you don’t want blacks, jews, romany, homosexuals, or indians in your homeland,
you’re hardly advocating the idea of freedom and democracy, are you?

~~~
masklinn
> Next, you’ll have to do a little more than just rant to convince me that
> laws restricting hateful speech are somehow antithetical to “freedom and
> democracy.”

They're restrictions on freedom of speech, so they're restrictions on freedom
(I have a harder time with the "restriction on democracy" part, that one does
not make sense).

> Xenophobia and racism are pretty much as anti-democratic as you can get

Sure, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

~~~
raganwald
You have to think globally, not locally. For example, laws against murder and
pillage are laws against the freedom for market forces to govern individual
behaviour. However, the imposition of a police state restricting these
behaviours makes individuals _more free_ because they can act with little fear
of murder and pillage.

Likewise, any law restricting speech is a restriction of freedom in the small.
Some (myself included) argue that it increases freedom in the large. You may
not agree, but I hope you appreciate my argument that there is an argument to
be made and that it is not “obvious” that enacting hate speech laws are
antithetical to freedom in the large.

As for the not relevant to the discussion bit, I was responding to that
specific comment, which brought them up.

~~~
masklinn
> For example, laws against murder and pillage are laws against the freedom
> for market forces to govern individual behaviour.

These laws exist to avoid citizen A encroaching upon (and unfairly limiting)
citizen B's freedom. Citizen A being a xenophobic assbag does not, in and of
itself, restrict citizen B's freedom. If citizen A acts on his xenophobia,
there will likely be laws allowing citizen B to get redress (and if there are
not there should be), but making xenophobia itself illegal is thoughtcrime,
and it _is_ a restriction on freedom of speech with little to no justification
(and value) outside of emotional appeal (one of the worst basis I know for
lawmaking).

~~~
raganwald
Hey, I accept that there are people who don’t agree with me, and that’s why
there is this country called the USA where they can happily co-exist with each
other while I write this in Toronto.

But I hope you can accept that there are people who do agree with me, and
therefore understand my statement that one must do more than simply quote
holocaust denial laws or hate crime laws to label a country or group of
countries as somehow being un-free or un-democratic.

I don’t agree with your position that hate crime laws are thoughtcrime, or
that there is no value to them, or no justification for them, but I also don’t
just dismiss your views, I understand that there are many people like you and
that the question obviously is subject to debate and discussion, and that
different people will come to different conclusions.

Compare and contrast this to the question of Heliocentricity. Heliocentricity
is one of those things where there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong.
I think hate crime laws are not in the same class, they are strategies for
achieving an end, and we have extremely imperfect information about the
utility of these strategies.

For example, there is no way to do a true study. We can’t conjure up two
countries that are identical in every respect except for there being a hate
crime law in one and no such law in the other. Canada and the US are similar,
but we Canadians have hate crime laws and gun control and socialized medicine
and cheaper education and a bunch of other stuff.

What if Canada is a nicer place to live for visible minorities but it’s all
the other stuff and not the hate crime laws? How could I know for sure? OTOH,
what if the things you like about the US have everything to do with it being a
wealthy country based on its resources and the size of its internal market and
not to do with its freedom of speech?

So... I suggest we agree to disagree and further I hope that you can
simultaneously hold your own views, disagree with my views, but understand why
I might challenge someone to do more than simply cite a holocaust denial law
as evidence a country is un-free or un-democratic.

