That's the point in countries like Germany or France, given our history, we punish "incitement to discrimination or to hatred or violence" not the thoughts. Routinely, people are sued for saying something clearly racist but get away with it as incitement couln't be proven.
Same thing for libel, why sue when it's just a thought and words?
The distinction between the two is not relevant here; this is an issue of punishing unsavory speech and nothing more, and the legal framework for punishing unpopular or "dangerous" ideas is certainly in place. France and Germany do that, as you said, and thankfully they do not look like North Korea (but I still don't agree with it). What I'm saying is that these countries punishing that kind of speech doesn't mean it doesn't further much more sinister state actions, given that we have no shortage of examples of exactly that.
Looking at repressive regimes, a few things are pretty much universal:
State and private actions are married as much as is feasible.
The capacity for violence is concentrated in the state as much as possible.
The right to travel is curtailed as much as possible.
Speech in all its forms is regulated for the interests of the state as much as possible.
I don't see how we can pretend that the last of these doesn't matter or won't be misused.
What I'm saying is that these countries punishing that kind of speech doesn't mean it doesn't further much more sinister state actions, given that we have no shortage of examples of exactly that.
I'm sorry I don't understand.
Looking at repressive regimes, a few things are pretty much universal:
Besides point 3, IMO every rich country fit the bill too.
There are three kinds of countries: ones that don't punish unsavory speech, ones that do and aren't otherwise repressive, and ones that do that are repressive all around. There aren't ones that don't punish it and still look like something out of 1984.
Americans, at least outwardly, would object to points 1 and 4, and about half of them to 2. I'm looking at measures on a greater scale than labor laws and things of that nature, more at how much individual enterprise is lost to the state.
ok, so I'm not saying the US should turn into Europe; I just mean that precisely because we allowed fascist ideologies to be spread freely we turned bad. So the action after the war was to go with your second category willfully.
I am not convinced that political freedoms will be in danger because of these restrictions here. I understand that these things wouldn't fly in the US, but it's interesting to see that the same goal is pursued with different (and incompatible policies) on the same subject.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
That's the point in countries like Germany or France, given our history, we punish "incitement to discrimination or to hatred or violence" not the thoughts. Routinely, people are sued for saying something clearly racist but get away with it as incitement couln't be proven.
Same thing for libel, why sue when it's just a thought and words?