Many countries, and citizens of those countries, expect their government to take reasonable steps to protect groups from racist or other hate speech. We don't feel that makes it a totalitarian dictatorship. Germany has some very particular regulations around speech and certain political symbols and groups - because they very clearly don't want to become a totalitarian dictatorship again. The US allows those - because free speech.
You'd expect me to follow US standards if I had a company selling food or electrics there, wouldn't you? Why does it become "people are dumb" to expect a US company to follow European or Far Eastern law? Don't like it? Don't operate there.
It's that simple for all other products and services, why not tech?
The point is that under that same logic, you should ban practically all opinions that involve politics.
"Selling cocaine should be prohibited" implies that you want the state to exert violence against people who sell drugs, either to incarcerate them, force them to pay a fee (which if not paid will likely result in incarceration, i.e. violence). Wanting cocaine to be prohibited is violent speech.
"Bald people should be incarcerated" is also violent speech.
Allowing one while prohibiting other is an arbitrary decision, since both are violent ideas. The fact that most people agree with the former and disagree with the latter is not a good way to decide, since you might as well just ban every idea that people disagree with (or that the state disagrees with) which is exactly what totalitarian dictatorships do.
> We don't feel that makes it a totalitarian dictatorship
Given a big enough cage, animals don't notice that they are in a cage.
I wouldn't call Germany a totalitarian dictatorship, but it doesn't have freedoms that I consider important, such as freedom of speech. If that freedom is taken away by a dictator or by a crowd voting against it, it doesn't make much difference to the individual that wants freedom.
Keep in mind that not everyone in Germany, or other countries is against freedom of speech, they lost it because most people don't want it.
It's not an American view, it's a view of people who care about freedom. I'm not American, and I'm sure there are many non-Americans that want freedom.
That does not follow at all.
> Allowing one while prohibiting other is an arbitrary decision
You neglect, to include freedom from. In both the US model and your interpretation of freedom to do and say whatever you like, freedom from is little considered. Just freedom to.
Yet you can't ever consider one without the other.
Your freedoms will impact those around you. Your neighbour will be impacted by your building a wall as it may cut their light or view. They'll be impacted by your words as much as installing a 2,000w sound system in your garden.
The "freedom" of the majority to stand out side the polling station calling out the "fucking niggers" - or jews or whatever - for daring to want to cast a vote, express their will. Literally putting the minority in fear of their life. That freedom has taken a freedom from another.
Such fundamentalist freedom is often espoused by those seeking a racist or oppressive regime. The freedom to call out the niggers, to have the neo-Nazi rally, to require the jews to wear a yellow star in public. That "freedom" is one of the tools to put and keep the minority in their low place and get second class service or bus seating.
> it's a view of people who care about freedom
NO. Emphatically no. Just for people who care for a fundamentalist selfishness of the majority. To be a racist jerk, or bring the tyranny of an oppressive majority outside the polling station. To be white in Alabama or apartheid South Africa. To not be white in other places.
Those who really care for freedom attempt to balance freedom to against freedom from. It's always a balancing act, it's just that 98% of it is really easy to allow.
Germany absolutely does have freedom of speech, they just attempt to set some common-sense limits on when that freedoms takes from others more than it gives you. You can complain against the government as much and as often as you like. You can't pretend the holocaust didn't happen or promote a new gassing of minorities. You don't have the freedom to incite violence with your words.
The only country that really goes with "freedom to" as the main consideration with little to no consideration of "freedom from" is the US. Mainly due to what often looks like deliberate misinterpretations of their constitution over the years.
(I'll agree that there have been things that look like deliberate misinterpretations - particularly of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Freedom of speech doesn't look like one of those to me.)
Seems like the constitution, and early amendments, were a decent attempt for their age to do something a little better. Laws and texts of that age did not take the endless paragraphs of today's legal language.
As written it can be interpreted in a 20th century way and encompass everything, including commercial, pornography, campaigning and every damn fringe thing. Given the context of everything else from the 18th century, the known history of how they arrived where they did, and the rest of the constitution it seems far more probable that they simply meant freedom to choose religion, criticise the regime, free press and right of assembly. The "classical" definition of freedom of speech, if you like, without bending society out of shape by chasing the letter rather than spirit. 18th century laws rarely delved into precise and perfect definitions of all the edge cases.
As it is open to interpretation, we'll never know what precisely they had in mind. :)
Saying "Gays should be treated the same as straights by the law" isn't necessarily violent.
Saying "You can't refuse to sell a cake to a gay person" is violent, because it implies forcing a person to sell something.
What I'm criticizing is banning speech because it's "violent" while at the same time allowing other forms of violent speech. You're not banning it because it's violent, you're banning it because you don't agree with it.
Am I pushing this violence thing to the limits? Kind of, I can see a counter-argument saying that I'm being overly literal, etc. but hear this: Many of these moral inquisitors that want to ban violent speech have ideas that are actually violent, not only in the "philosophical"/overly literal sense that I described, but ideas that actually would affect good people negatively, and many times they don't only want to ban nazis and that sort of stuff, sometimes they want to censor liberal (in the British sense of the word) and conservative ideas that are held by a non-negligible amount of "regular" people.
So it's important to spot these lies when they start, even if they seem like edge cases and overly literal interpretations, I think it's good to deconstruct these ideas to their fundamental concepts and analyze them before saying "Yeah, they're Nazis anyway, ban them".
Now we suffer from the consequences.
Also, asking the govt. to ban "violent speech" is violent speech itself.
Are people too dumb to understand this or would they actually love to live in a totalitarian dictatorship?