I understand your concerns, but I think you are again extrapolating too far and using the old fallacy of the slippery slope argument. Please see my responses to he other two commenters where I explain that Germany is a nation that has free speech, yet manages to strike a good balance, in my view, between fostering free speech and reducing dangerous speech.
I understand your concerns, but I think you are again extrapolating too far and using the old fallacy of the slippery slope argument. Please see my responses to he other two commenters where I explain that Germany is a nation that has free speech, yet manages to strike a good balance, in my view, between fostering free speech and reducing dangerous speech.
Germany has led the world stage twice in this century with poor outcomes
It is now again centre stage as the most powerful country in the EU now Britain has gone
Perhaps this time things will go right but there are not many reassuring signs-becoming totally dependent on Russian gas,defenceless and relying on American goodwill etc
Probably learning the lessons of history and a little hubris would be a wise move
The Anglosphere with all its drawbacks has been a winning combination so far -fierce defence of free speech being one of the major pillars of this success
I agree that the Anglosphere with its emphasis on free speech has been a winning combination, but note that I am not arguing against free speech. I am arguing in favour of drawing a line between free speech and hate speech, or more generally between free speech and harmful speech. That is different. AS I mentioned in my reply to Eli Squires above, we are drawing such lines all the time, for example when it comes to traffic rules and laws or rules about gun safety and gun possession, or other health and safety issues.
I know there is a massive cultural difference between Europe and the US here (particularly when it comes to gun control) but that does not make one system better than the other. It is just a difference in where the line is drawn between something that is considered good and necessary and something that is considered bad and harmful.
The problem is where and when and who draws the line
People have very different views on what constitutes hate speech for instance-ie some seem to be triggered by the very slightest of perceived differences!
The safest route is therefore to ban as little speech as possible even if this allows the spouting of hate speech
Any other course of action is fraught with problems-trust in the good sense of and have faith in the citizenry -has worked successfully so far
I understand your concerns, but I think you are again extrapolating too far and using the old fallacy of the slippery slope argument. Please see my responses to he other two commenters where I explain that Germany is a nation that has free speech, yet manages to strike a good balance, in my view, between fostering free speech and reducing dangerous speech.
Germany has led the world stage twice in this century with poor outcomes
It is now again centre stage as the most powerful country in the EU now Britain has gone
Perhaps this time things will go right but there are not many reassuring signs-becoming totally dependent on Russian gas,defenceless and relying on American goodwill etc
Probably learning the lessons of history and a little hubris would be a wise move
The Anglosphere with all its drawbacks has been a winning combination so far -fierce defence of free speech being one of the major pillars of this success
Malcolm Beaton
I agree that the Anglosphere with its emphasis on free speech has been a winning combination, but note that I am not arguing against free speech. I am arguing in favour of drawing a line between free speech and hate speech, or more generally between free speech and harmful speech. That is different. AS I mentioned in my reply to Eli Squires above, we are drawing such lines all the time, for example when it comes to traffic rules and laws or rules about gun safety and gun possession, or other health and safety issues.
I know there is a massive cultural difference between Europe and the US here (particularly when it comes to gun control) but that does not make one system better than the other. It is just a difference in where the line is drawn between something that is considered good and necessary and something that is considered bad and harmful.
I agree with your sentiments butтАжтАж
The problem is where and when and who draws the line
People have very different views on what constitutes hate speech for instance-ie some seem to be triggered by the very slightest of perceived differences!
The safest route is therefore to ban as little speech as possible even if this allows the spouting of hate speech
Any other course of action is fraught with problems-trust in the good sense of and have faith in the citizenry -has worked successfully so far
Malcolm Beaton