Why is it punishable by law in Denmark to state that sub-Saharan African countries have average IQs around 70 and that it is hard to create functional democracies in countries with average IQs below 90?

The first substatement is backed by decades of empirical evidence. The second has much newer backing but the curves actually show the cut off value to be around 95 so saying 90 is a much weaker statement than there is evidence for.

Why has it recently become illegal to burn Qurans in Denmark? Considering the immoral and dangerous contents of that book, it would make a lot more sense to ban Muslim worship instead.

(None of this comes from the EU. It is a specific member state that criminalizes certain speech acts on its territory out of its own volition -- and as a result of violence from Muslims.)

Lol why is it always such a predictable list of gripes

So I am not wrong but you don't like it?

If I were to tell you that the examples you selected depict you as a bigot how would you react?

Freedom of speech is exactly for unpopular (or "bigot") opinions. You don't need freedom of speech to protect you from saying that puppies are cute.

And how is popularity determined?

Where is this going?

I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits. If something is subject to whether it’s popular shouldn’t there be forces who influence that?

>I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits

I'm not. Saying that freedom of speech is for unpopular opinions doesn't imply it only protects unpopular opinions, any more than saying that wheelchair ramps are for wheelchairs doesn't imply only wheelchair people can use it.

If we’re discussing wheelchair ramps we are going to default to matters related to people in wheelchairs first because they are who the ramps are for.

Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.

https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-4-ramps-and-...

You said freedom of speech is exactly what unpopular opinions are for. What do you mean? If popularity isn’t subject to the arbitrary whims of people then how is it determined?

Can popularity be regulated like wheelchair accessibility? If so then how is it anything but inevitable that someone’s freedom of speech will be restricted depending on the nature of the law.

>Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.

>https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-4-ramps-and-...

There's also comprehensive case law on what is first amendment protected speech, but how "comprehensive" the relevant regulations are is irrelevant to my point. Despite regulations clearly intending wheelchair ramps to be used by people in wheelchairs, anyone can use them. We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.

> We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.

Because it’s obvious who’s in a wheelchair and who isn’t.

Why does it appear difficult for you to explain un/popularity with regard to free speech though?

If you want to make the point that popularity could be determined by case law then that sounds fair, I mean it’s an idea I would look into myself at least. But you’ve already deemed that to be irrelevant to your own point. It’s like you shot yourself in the foot. I appreciate the assistance though.

Somewhere tolerant, I'm sure!

That's exactly what I would expect from someone as tolerant as you.

Hit the showers!

I'm more interested in how moderators react to such accounts. There are a couple accounts that do stuff like that, but somehow they are always "just on the line" somehow without crossing it (in the eyes of moderators). Essentially saying "kill all {insert race}" is bannable, but what this person is doing (continuously) is all good.

I think that the difference may be whether the comment portrays the person as the cat or the mouse, or an ally to either.

For instance: the recent thread on student protests in Iran which last I checked (before the discussion propelled the actual submission off of the front page) was teeming with tacit appeals for foreign intervention, plausibly by the most vocal critics of the most likely interventionists.

Maybe not the best example for you. But I think it’s a matter of context. A comment is censurable on HN according to how it appears in relation to its more dominate and/or more well-received siblings.

It also may help to consider submissions here as belonging to something like a decentralized subreddits; drawing crowds all familiar with an approved narratives to convene around, for or against respectively. The trick may be to strategically posit your offensive remarks where they’re least likely to be received as such.

Yeah, quite predictable for someone to give actual examples when asked for examples.

If you have other examples, go on and share them!

We punish people for saying the truth. In Germany we fined a man for calling a fat politician fat. Which she definitely is, morbidly so. Stuff like that.

Because insults can be fined. That is a German law though, not an EU thing.

A bigger issue than the fine (which Much didn't have to pay because he won in court) is that the police thought it was a swell idea to search his house.

The fine was wrong, too, and the amount (6000€!) was absurd.

https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/03/german-businessman-cleared...

She should have challenged him to a duel instead. That would have been a lot more fair than mobilizing the state to fight battles that should never have been fought AND it would have put the risk where it should have been, namely on her shoulders (and stomach and thighs) instead of on his.

Another insulcident happened in January 2024:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricarda_Lang&oldi...

The German police thought it was within its rights to demand that a foreign social media platform hand over identifying information on a user that apparently called her "well-rounded" in a less polite manner.

I don't think the German police should search citizen's houses or demand identifying information about people who say things that aren't nice (but true).

I should be able to disagree publicly with the authorities on most issues without fear of prosecution or having my views suppressed online. That is a basic principle of democracy.

We also shouldn't have to use personal ID to get online, but that is all being emplaced as we speak.