The rise of outspoken fascists and racists is precisely what makes me question whether "free speech at all costs" is a wise political stance, especially when it is patently obvious that the creators of that content are not everyday people, but an entity intent on inciting hatred and violence. None the less I do recognize the danger of limiting free speech.

That is even more of a reason to oppose it in my opinion as an American. The last thing you want to give fascists is a preboxed mechanism for control to say label those who call death camps unconsciousable "hate speech against native citizens". Since they /will/ twist laws every way they can and ignore them against themselves.

thank you. this is exactly my point. the only reason this is implemented is to shield those in power further and allow them to hunt down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech.

Note that this is not yet implemented.

However, the main point is that "would even cheer for fascists" includes "would even cheer for people hunting down anyone who they deem in violation of what constitutes their version of free speech", which doesn't seem like a very effective way to fight exactly that.

if you have a radical group on the left that would remove these people from power then these would automatically be labeled fascists. fascists are automatically terrorists if their ambition is to overthrow the status-quo.

So if I had instead originally written "I would cheer for terrorists", would have made it more sense? I wrote fascist because it seemed to capture our times better. I could have also written "criminals". It would not made any difference.

A good example of where this may impact us is the Catalan government wanting to split from Spain. Will blogs from these people be deemed of terrorist nature then? So even it is not yet implemented, putting this forward as a proposal is pretty outrageous.

You don't have to convince me that this proposal is bad - I agree with you. I'm pointing out that your alternative (supporting terrorists, fascists, or whatever) is even worse. If you support terrorists that terrorise those trying to get this passed, that support will also help terrorists that, say, want to terrorise people who campaign for Catalan independence.

The rise of fascists is EXACTLY WHY we should make sure such values are protected, not an excuse to abandon them. Do you really think you can prevent the rise of fascism by forbidding speech? How would that work?

It's based on the observation that what counts as a 'viable position' is based on social control and totalitarianism is put into place by replacing these social control mechanisms with fear and terror.

In case you didn't get the memo, here is a primer on how to turn a democracy into a totalitarian system:

1. Invent an external scapegoat ('the enemy')

2. Polarize: Either you're with us or with them. Mediating center positions and compromises belong to 'the enemy'. Argue that you're for the simple, honest-working men and against the elites, who belong to 'the enemy'.

3. As part of point 2, push radical radical positions into the public discourse to erode social control mechanisms. ('Why can't I say X' where X is something despicable, like being a racist, being for for genocide, etc., but dressed into a seemingly legitimate 'arguments' and 'concerns'.)

4. Instil fear of the external enemy and, as much as possible, terror against the internal enemy on the streets. Ideally, there should be bands of people on the streets who mug or kill perceived enemies (e.g. the S.A., Bürgerwehren, death squadrons, etc.).

5. As a result of 3-4, once a certain threshold is reached, public discussion has been radicalized and mediating center positions have been quenched. Voting will become a false dilemma between us and them.

6. Seize power by vote or coup, eradicate the remaining control mechanisms, eradicate free media and put them under state control (in a fight against 'fake media'), eradicate remaining political opponents by abusing the justice system (anti-corruption laws work well).

The idea behind limiting freedom of speech is to prevent 2-3 from reaching a critical threshold that enables 4 & 5.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

"Fascists", "racists" and other wonderful terms are the same scapegoats, but used by other ideological movements for their own benefit. Everything you describe can be attributed to them as well. What's funny is that they basically give fascists and others power because they use these terms to discredit everyone who opposes them, thus making descent human beings be silent, while the common population slowly becomes angry and the only support among politicians they could find are before mentioned "fascists" (of which many aren't actually fascists at all, they just see potential benefits of expressing such ideas). Don't try to rationalize censorship. Don't paternalize common population. If you limit freedom of speech, you don't limit it for dishonest people, they will always find a way to express their position. Would I open your eyes if I say that Europe just copies the same laws used by authoritarian regimes to suppress opposition? I am not exaggerating. They literally copy Russian and Chinese laws. Do you think their laws say "expressing any critics of the regime is forbidden and is punishable with 3-4 years of jail", etc.? No, they say that "justifying Fascism, terrorism is forbidden". They just label everyone as "Fascist", "terrorist", "radical". If you do believe that Europe does this with good intentions for people, you are naive.

Totalitarianism is well-defined and there is no problem discerning it from a working democracy. I deliberately used the term to make it clear that it's completely irrelevant to the discussion which brand of totalitarianism is involved - it ranges from communism to the Nazi movement of the 3rd Reich.

To reply to the unjustified sentiments in the rest of your post and the ad hominem attack: I didn't justify anything, I tried to lay out the reasons that are given as the motivation of limitations of freedom of speech in existing EU countries.

These reasons are part of a much larger puzzle, and there are many more considerations to take into account - especially legal an procedural ones, but also democratic division of power issues - before a meaningful discussion of a particular measure of limiting freedom of speech could even begin.

Your reply is the typical example of the frequent use of false dichotomies in public discussions of such matters. It's resting on the obviously false dichotomy that either there is no free speech at all or absolute, totally unrestricted freedom of speech otherwise. Implicitly, it is probably also on the fallacious slippery slope argument that if you limit freedom of speech in some specific, highly controlled way (e.g. under direct judicial oversight with high hurdles), then the restrictions will still invariably worsen over time. That's highly doubtful, too, and at least you'd expect an argument for it.

Returning to the particular case: Yes, I do believe that Europe does this with good intentions. It's absolutely stupid to think anyone in the EU Parliament or in the EU commissions has bad intentions in general. There is no reason to attribute bad intentions to everyone who disagrees with you. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No, I don't think this particular proposition is good in any way whatsoever, pretty much for the in my opinion correct reasons laid out in the mozilla blog.

Yeah, but unless you're going full totalitarian, I don't see how it can work. It will just add additional legitimacy to the speech which is 'suppressed'. So unless you want to do a china style great firewall, and punish people for speaking out, maybe it's better to actually defend freedom, instead of limiting freedom in the name of protecting freedom?

Sorry if I sound frustrated. But I just think all this anti-free speech is a knee-jerk reaction to the symptoms of the rising far-right, not a well thought-out strategy of preserving liberal democracy.

One of the most effective tools of propaganda ist repeating falsehoods until they "feel true". Limiting speech probably works against that.

"probably works" without any evidence is not the standard I feel should be set for taking away the most basic freedoms.

> The rise of outspoken fascists and racists

Do you have any data to backup "rise", because it sure looks like increased media coverage of fringe groups and not any sort of actual rise in these things.

If you want to protect "everyday people", "free speech at all costs" is the way to do it. Otherwise the people in power will decide what speech is allowed and what isn't.

>and would even cheer for fascists

I'm lost for words to describe the stupidity of this

(S)he is probably touching the problem when all parties that are supposed to be normal would vote for this extreme legislation, and only extremist ones would oppose it; i.e. the problem will be the lack of choice in that matter, caused by parties themselves; a situation similar leading to the election of current US president where many people just voted "in jest" due to not being heard and not having any means to voice their concerns. I am frankly not sure how to address this beside starting an own party and gaining required % support to get into parliament.

While I agree with your general point, I think it's wrong to characterise this as "not being able to post your dick pic to Facebook or whatever". This isn't about posting memes; it's about freedom of expression. It's about preventing, say, the Hungarian government labelling George Soros as a terrorist, and subsequently prevent you from making statements online that agree with him.

Sure, suppressing freedom of expression is not a good way to suppress freedom of expression - but this is a serious issue.

(Though, as mentioned elsewhere, it's still early in the process, and hopefully the regulation can be altered before it is passed.)

A charitable reading of this would be that the grandfather is sharing Voltaire's view: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

you possibly misunderstood the difference between anger and intelligence? a system that uses technology to increase surveillance and a fear mongering language (seriously "terrorism"??) needs to be stopped with every means possible. Especially if they're sneaking it in so that you can't legally fight it. How else are you going to fight them? Buttons and a leaflet campaign? Come on!

> needs to be stopped with every means possible

Nothing needs to be done by every means possible. This isn’t worth vaporising cities over, for one example. Or fascism, for another.

When people start thinking that the ends justify the means, they forget that outside of maybe death, and people still argue about that, ends are just narrative conveniences and there is only means. And you can't very well have means justifying means, can you?

> you can't very well have means justifying means

Yes you can. They’re called instrumental values and goals.

Things like this are clear steps on a road. Article 13 was the camel nose through the tent. One could call it drastic at the time but shooting every loser involved in the Beer Hall Putsch for treason would have saved the world a lot of trouble. A lot of them were purged anyway.

Sure, but "every means possible" is a very clear shortcut directly to the end of that road.

> needs to be stopped with every means possible

... such as groups that want to increase surveillance and use fear mongering language, and will make it so you can't legally fight it.

Yeah, that makes total sense. No better way to deal with authoritarians reaching for power than to elect authoritarians into power so they can deal with the wannabe authoritarians in their authoritarian ways.

as I said elsewhere, I'm not talking about electing anyone into power. I'm talking about not condemning the action when somebody will come along and start strategically taking people in power out (this happened before and will happen again as long as the world stays on this trajectory it's only a question of time). I tend to cheer for the Stauffenberg personalities - even it's illegal. Sorry if that offends so many of you that you have to downvote the fuck out of me.

No, what you actually wrote in the other posts - such as "I would cheer for fascists" - is what got them downvoted, not what you now claim to have meant, because the voters are not clairvoyant.

> would even cheer for fascists

That is what you said.

Would you really cheer for people happy to physically assault minorities just because there's an ineffective limit put in place on what you can post on the internet? Do you want to take a moment to look in the mirror and think about the difference in scale between those two things?

of course not. I would morally support any group that comes up and starts assassinating key people who commit crimes against social justice. The RAF had a lot of supporters from all parts of society. I'd never condemn anyone who does that which is my personal way of "cheering"

I think politicians ought to be scared of their populace, and they are the ones that need to be under constant surveillance. And not vice versa.

I don't fully accept your premise, but if granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals is what it takes to get rid of legislation that could have severe consequences for the freedom of speech then I'd be in favour.

I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.

> I don't accept that this means condoning any action those people might take.

That's because you turned "cheer for fascists" into "granting some leeway to people with less than scrupulous ideals". Even just playing such word games is lending support, and that's even more than condoning something.

I'd consider mere wordplay closer to granting leeway than actual support. Either way I don't see how either would force me to condone actions taken in their name.

I have to admit I'd have difficulty to decide between voting for them (which I'd consider actual support) or accepting laws as described in this post. Thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice, yet.

That support bit was snarky, I must admit. But the original comment still says they'd "cheer for fascists" because this proposal is so bad. Because that means they hate the EU, and just want to see it hurt.

You instead are talking about how not restricting speech would also allow fascists freedom of speech, which is something else. That makes sense on the top level or attached to other comments, but in this "timeline", the boat has sailed, and "cheering for fascists" in preference to this proposal is what is on the table.

Fair enough, but I still don't agree with your position that 'cheering for fascists' is that extreme an action in the face of legislation that infringes on free speech. Especially since as you've noted, being in favour of freedom of speech already means you need to grant fascists leeway (cheering them on is different, that much we agree on).

Of course cheering on fascists is unlikely to to lead to more freedom of speech, so in that sense I don't think it's a truly worthwhile course of action.

Please can you post the link to the proposal that you've read?

Are you sure EU already isn't being run by fascists? Sure seems like most of the world is slipping into Fascism right now, and I wouldn't doubt for a second that the internet censorship proposal in OP is to censor left wing ideaologies that would bring prosperous conditions to the working class and poor of the EU.

Keep in mind that during the rise of Hitler, the USA never did the things to Fascists and Nazi's that they did to leftists during the Red Scare & McCarthyism. Having workers rights and socialized health care is a big threat to the ruling class.

The bourgeois elite are very very scared of people like Jeremy Corbyn, but fascists will certainly keep those borgeois safe, rich, and profiting off of war against brown people and homeless people.

>A person who believes that there is a hierarchy of personhood — that some people are more human than others, and some fall below the threshold of being people entirely — and furthermore, that that hierarchy should be institutionalized, is a fascist. A movement composed of such people is a fascist movement. A government managing such a project is a fascist government. (The natural moral logic of such a hierarchy is that violence must be done to the weak by the strong, since they are not human beings at all, but parasites and predators.)

Is this not what the world elite are doing right now? UN Special Rapporteur this week came out with new reports of rampant poverty in USA and UK. What the US & EU allies did to the middle east? Does none of this qualify as fascism?

I think by the time the world wakes up to the fact that they're currently living in at least some form of fascism or close to it, it will be too late.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/05/un-rapporte...

Edit: Care to comment with reasons why you're downvoting and even flagging? I'm always open to changing my mind.

You're probably being downvoted for posting handwavey flamebait without much to learn from, and you've been doing this a lot. It's not substantive enough and doesn't lead to the kinds of intellectually gratifying discussions that readers come here for.

> Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How did you think the EU would end? I mean, really. It always ends the same way, no exceptions.

Please, let's not get hyperbolic here. No fascists are coming, and let's not support any such for any reason.

Having said that, the most pressing problem with authoritasianism and empire building is the EU itself. For the sake of an example, consider this (2011) rant by Guy Verhofstadt, on how member states must give up their sovereignty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDpscmiXwY

Apologies for the meme format; can't seem to find the original while on the go.