The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is? Why don't you google the Strasbourgh resolutions

There is no "sane" definition of multiculturalism. By definition it frustrates the sort of co-operation required to produce one, it's a useless concept.

[Fragony]

There is no "sane" definition of multiculturalism. By definition it frustrates the sort of co-operation required to produce one, it's a useless concept.

GWe will see who was right, I expecr it was me

[HoreTore]

At least he got this part right.

What nonsense. I'll put that statement in the bin using just two examples:

ABB killed 77 people, either a member of or connected to the ruling party. And yet he is under no restrictions when it comes to free speech. He can say what he wants in the trial, assuming it has something to do with the case. No restrictions. He is also allowed to freely communicate with whoever he wants from prison. He can even do interviews. The only thing that will stop a letter to or from him is if he mails plans for new criminal offences. Heck, even the courtroom is open to everyone.

After 22/7, Fjordman had several chronicles published in every single major newspaper. He gave several interviews. No censorship. A lot more space than anyone could've hoped for. Aftenposten, for example, recieves over 30.000 chronicles per year, and can only publish a couple each day, so his access to the media has been extreme.

In short, to say that we have a problem with free speech here is utter rubbish. The reason why certain right-wingers whine and moan is that in addition to their opinions, we also allow opinions they do not hold. Their idea of free speech is a place where only their opinions are legal.

It is? Why don't you google the Strasbourgh resolutions

Yes, it really is just a conspiracy theory. Like all such theories, it's just nonsense.

I blame the human mind. Our brains are made in such a way that we see connections even when there is no connections at all.

He has followed rational, logical steps in an inherently illogical based system.

This is my opinion as well.

[Fragony]

Classical leftist mistake, can't just decede it isnn't real, it has to be wrong to be tnot true. And it's true, it has all been written down

[HoreTore]

Classical leftist mistake, can't just decede it isnn't real, it has to be wrong to be tnot true. And it's true, it has all been written down

Sure.

[rvg]

What nonsense. I'll put that statement in the bin using just two examples:

ABB killed 77 people, either a member of or connected to the ruling party. And yet he is under no restrictions when it comes to free speech. He can say what he wants in the trial, assuming it has something to do with the case. No restrictions. He is also allowed to freely communicate with whoever he wants from prison. He can even do interviews. The only thing that will stop a letter to or from him is if he mails plans for new criminal offences. Heck, even the courtroom is open to everyone. After 22/7, Fjordman had several chronicles published in every single major newspaper. He gave several interviews. No censorship. A lot more space than anyone could've hoped for. Aftenposten, for example, recieves over 30.000 chronicles per year, and can only publish a couple each day, so his access to the media has been extreme.
In short, to say that we have a problem with free speech here is utter rubbish. The reason why certain right-wingers whine and moan is that in addition to their opinions, we also allow opinions they do not hold. Their idea of free speech is a place where only their opinions are legal.

I admit that things in Norway aren't as bad as in, say, Britain, but Norway does have laws against hate speech. If I wanna engaged in some good ole fashioned muslim-bashin' or gay-bashin' I may end up charged. That's not cool. Still, I will definitely admit that things in Norway are markedly better than in some other EU countries.

[HoreTore]

I admit that things in Norway aren't as bad as in, say, Britain, but Norway does have laws against hate speech. If I wanna engaged in some good ole fashioned muslim-bashin' or gay-bashin' I may end up charged. That's not cool. Still, I will definitely admit that things in Norway are markedly better than in some other EU countries.

While I do not think it was just to punish Tore W. Tvedt for saying that Jews are parasites we need to cleanse ourselves of, I do not see that it's fair to say that we have "no free speech" because of it. In fact, I still believe that people saying that are slightly deranged.

The same goes for the situation in Britain. While they also may have laws I do not like, there is no way I can say that there is no free speech in Britain. Of course there is free speech in Britain.


If you want to see real concerns for the freedom of speech, take a look at the wave of anti-gay laws the Russosphere just invented. It's now illegal to speak positively about gay people in St. Petersburg and Belorussia, with Ukraine among those considering it.

[rvg]

While I do not think it was just to punish Tore W. Tvedt for saying that Jews are parasites we need to cleanse ourselves of, I do not see that it's fair to say that we have "no free speech" because of it. In fact, I still believe that people saying that are slightly deranged. The same goes for the situation in Britain. While they also may have laws I do not like, there is no way I can say that there is no free speech in Britain. Of course there is free speech in Britain.

My problem is this: a country that calls itself free and prides itself on its freedom punishes a person for expressing an opinion. Yes, it's a stupid and hateful opinion, but if we start to criminalize stupidity, we'll be in serious trouble. This is a dangerous precedent, because today hate speech may be defined narrowly, while tomorrow its definition might widen. Western society owes its success to freedom of expression. This is what makes us great, we shouldn't just toss it away for the sake of preserving someone's precious feelings.

If you want to see real concerns for the freedom of speech, take a look at the wave of anti-gay laws the Russosphere just invented. It's now illegal to speak positively about gay people in St. Petersburg and Belorussia, with Ukraine among those considering it.

Yeah, but words "freedom" and "Russosphere" are mutually exclusive anyway.

[HoreTore]

My problem is this: a country that calls itself free and prides itself on its freedom punishes a person for expressing an opinion. Yes, it's a stupid and hateful opinion, but if we start to criminalize stupidity, we'll be in serious trouble. This is a dangerous precedent, because today hate speech may be defined narrowly, while tomorrow its definition might widen. Western society owes its success to freedom of expression. This is what makes us great, we shouldn't just toss it away for the sake of preserving someone's precious feelings.

Yeah, but words "freedom" and "Russosphere" are mutually exclusive anyway.

I agree, but don't confuse things. If we owe our success to free speech, then that would mean that law against hatespeech is no problem at all, since we have never had as much free speech as we do now. Whatever laws we have now, there have never been a time when we had fewer of them.

[rvg]

I agree, but don't confuse things. If we owe our success to free speech, then that would mean that law against hatespeech is no problem at all, since we have never had as much free speech as we do now. Whatever laws we have now, there have never been a time when we had fewer of them.

Perhaps it's just my American perspective speaking. We take for granted our ability to deny Holocaust, blaspheme against any and every religion, burn holy books and insult people of all races and ethnicities with absolutely no fear of legal repercussions. Anything less seems....oppressive.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps it's just my American perspective speaking. We take for granted our ability to deny Holocaust, blaspheme against any and every religion, burn holy books and insult people of all races and ethnicities with absolutely no fear of legal repercussions. Anything less seems....oppressive.

Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.

[HoreTore]

Perhaps it's just my American perspective speaking. We take for granted our ability to deny Holocaust, blaspheme against any and every religion, burn holy books and insult people of all races and ethnicities with absolutely no fear of legal repercussions. Anything less seems....oppressive.

And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech.

[Montmorency]

Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.

Private property.

[rvg]

Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.

Because it puts people in direct danger.

[rvg]

And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech.

We don't. The only kind of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment is libel (which allows your target to sue you for defamation) and speech that puts people in danger, such as calls for a violent of overthrow the government. One oddball law is that you can't directly threaten to kill the president.

that's it.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, you have.

For example, one of the most famed defenses of free speech was written by a US supreme court judge during ww1 in a case against a couple of commies. He was the dissenting opinion, and the two commies were punished for speaking out against the draft.

But then again, free speech can be stopped by forces other than the government. Censorship is done and has been done by several other agents. Like "lists of naughty words" and other such guidelines US media has lived under(and ours as well, of course).

[rvg]

Yeah, you have.

For example, one of the most famed defenses of free speech was written by a US supreme court judge during ww1 in a case against a couple of commies. He was the dissenting opinion, and the two commies were punished for speaking out against the draft.

That law was repealed back in 1920.

[HoreTore]

That law was overturned back in 1969.

Read my posta again and pay special attention to the conjugation

(did I use conjugate correctly btw? Just learned the word! :p)

Edit: and a man like Breivik wouldn't even be allowed to vote in the US

[rvg]

Read my posta again and pay special attention to the conjugation

(did I use conjugate correctly btw? Just learned the word! :p)

The naughty word list only applies to a few public and basic cable channels. Anything you want, naughty words, porn, whatever can be found on premium channels, you just have to subscribe to them.

[HoreTore]

The naughty word list only applies to a few public and basic cable channels. Anything you want, naughty words, porn, whatever can be found on premium channels, you just have to subscribe to them.

"And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech."

I bolded the relevant part for you

[rvg]

"And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech." I bolded the relevant part for you

Thanks, I needed that. Yes, you are of course correct, but we did nip the problem in the bud.

[HoreTore]

On the whole, I'd say the western world is equal when it comes to freedom of speech. Americans may lament our laws against hate speech, while we euros may whine and moan about US prisoners losing their right to vote.

Cultural differences, I'd say.

[rvg]

On the whole, I'd say the western world is equal when it comes to freedom of speech. Americans may lament our laws against hate speech, while we euros may whine and moan about US prisoners losing their right to vote.

Cultural differences, I'd say.

Perhaps.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Private property.

What if the movie theater is chill with it? I know a couple of laid back dudes....

Because it puts people in direct danger.

Yeah I am sure someone can come up with a convincing argument why hate speech does as well.

Point was that your claim was ridiculous. Every country has their limits and a rationale on why those limits exist. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can claim they have no free speech.

[rvg]

Yeah I am sure someone can come up with a convincing argument why hate speech does as well. Point was that your claim was ridiculous. Every country has their limits and a rationale on why those limits exist. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can claim they have no free speech.

No, I think your strawman needs more straw.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, I think your strawman needs more straw.

Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.

Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.

[rvg]

Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.

Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.

Horetore actually puts together a coherent counterargument. Yours is akin to doubting God's omnipotence because he cannot create an immovable object.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But the hate speech laws are horrible. I don't get it acin. Where are the convincing rationales you refer to?

All this felons movie theaters ancient history bad words bleeped out stuff is irrelevant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But the hate speech laws are horrible. I don't get it acin. Where are the convincing rationales you refer to?

All this felons movie theaters ancient history bad words bleeped out stuff is irrelevant.

I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.

When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.

You're killing me. So the law doesn't effect you. So some people don't find it convincingly bad. So some people complain about the fire deal. SO WHAT?

When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.

Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?

I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.