Most of the world is fine with their version of freedom of speech. The extremist version from the US is rare, and causes huge amounts of harm.
US business owners need to wake up to the fact that their products are seen as publishers, not pipes, and that publishers in most of the world are regulated.
In point of fact, US law defined (via the DMCA "Safe Harbor" clause) most communications-media products (fora, video sharing sites, music repositories, etc.) as pipes for this reason. "They're pipes" is how the US regulates them.
In general, yes. SESTA/FOSTA nudged the definition of the safe harbor away from content that facilitated sex trafficking. This has no bearing on whether, say, iTunes is still safe in sharing the subversive, anti-government music of Creedence Clearwater Revival. ;)
The white nationalist rally in Charlottesville was the sort of fascist rally that other countries would categorically refuse a permit to. The US does not, in general, refuse permits under the assumption that a group (even a group with a violent ideology) will turn from a peaceable demonstration to a violent riot. Federal, state, and local law is heavily bent toward assumption of good faith.
Charlottesville had several injuries and one death.
I take it you're contradicting the coroner's report that Heather Heyer died of a blunt-force chest injury? Given that the driver of the car was convicted in her murder, you may want to walk that back.
Sure. And when a "new German" stabs an "old German" in the heart and kills him, he died of "causes unrelated to the injury" to quote one of our coroners, 6 hours (!) after the attack. These things aren't worth the papers they're printed on. A tool in the hand of politics
... probably also worth noting: not unlike the US, crime metrics on immigrants in Germany suggest that as a population, they're less likely to commit crimes than native Germans.
politifact, sure. Last year, there have been 28 rapes or sexual assaults in my city. According to police reports, witness reports and phantom photos, 26 of those are not from Germany. In the end-of-year reports, that number is close to 0. Funny how that works. because double-citizenship, acquittals, people never being caught, unknown identities.. you pick one
The source you've linked to doesn't mention a stabbing, and nothing I've been able to dig up suggests there was a stabbing in the Köthen death. Death from heart condition was unrelated to the injuries sustained from a fall the victim suffered scuffling with the 18-year-old (which, yes, smells fishy, but I think you're casting aspersions on an unrelated coroner who was looking at a woman with a crushed ribcage because of possible malpractice on a local-to-you coroner's part, which is... Well, this is the sort of misinformation-spreading and stereotyping, and the harm it causes, that we're discussing in this thread).
Are you conflating the facts from two situations? Media coverage of the Köthen protests suggests there was a stabbing incident in Chemnitz close in time to Köthen.
All of that having been said: I think your point that Germany has laws discouraging you from casting aspersions on groups due to individual actions of the groups, and America has far fewer such restrictions, stands. Except... Germany's homicide rate is lower than the US. So Germany's clearly doing something right relative to its neighbor 'cross the pond (of course, it may not be this---but given that Germany had to deal with actual Nazis and the US has not yet had that challenge, I'm not in the habit of gainsaying Germany's strategy here regarding laissez-faire freedom of speech).
It wasn't a stabbing, the rest was correct. It was very close after Chemnitz and the following protests, so this case was given close attention. Unwanted attention, so this ridiculous report was put out, and later the details were kept secret as "Ermittlungsgeheimnis".
I'm just using this ridiculous case to make the point that these reports don't mean anything. Both cases had extreme political pressure to make things happen.. and that exact thing was written on the report.
But besides that: I think it's faulty logic to say that as long as Germany's homocide (or whatever) rates are lower than the US, it must be better. You can't compare things like that. A murder used to be something extraordinary. Now it's everyday. According to statistics they're at an all-time low. See the case above and numerous other examples.
Well, no. A murder didn't used to be something extraordinary. Especially not in Germany---with respect, we are still talking about the country that committed genocide as state policy in the '40s. Germany's murder rate has remained basically flat for decades [https://ourworldindata.org/homicides]. What has changed is the population has risen by about 10 million in 50 years, so with a flat rate, you're going to see more murders.
...but more importantly, what has also changed extraordinarily is communication. We see a lot more of the murders, be they local, national, or international (the fact that we, a German and an American, are discussing Australian policy in response to a New Zealand murder spree is indicative of this). Internationally, we're a lot less tolerant of murder than we were because we can see it now. And as a species, we're pretty bad at risk assessment and filtering with this newfound panopticon power. It's a pretty well-documented phenomenon that fear in Germany of crime doesn't align with the hard numbers on incidents. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-09/german...
People see what they expect to see all too often.
If I may make an observation... You appear to be ascribing to some conspiracy-theory thinking in the statement that the coroner report aligned with perceived political pressure. Where is that notion coming from?
You think it'S a conspiracy theory to believe that days after Chemnitz, when another German was dead in that part of Germany, a coroner report that was pushed out hours after the attack, stating that although he was attacked and died on the spot, it didn't cause it - that all that is nothing but the truth? Ok yes I gladly accept that label
So no, you were not there. You have sources you trust more than the official reports, reason to believe those reports are bogus based on those sources, and you're using your beliefs about German process in a German autopsy to evaluate practices in an American case.
I don't think we have any more to discuss. I don't trust your unnamed sources. And I have a sinking suspicion they're exactly the sort Australian telco would find it necessary to de-list from DNS.
You're broadening the discussion from freedom of speech to freedom in general, and I don't think the conversation is particularly valuable over-broad. In terms of homicides, looking at London's rate relative to, say, major cities in the US, I strongly suspect the 2nd Amendment in the US plays a lot more role than the 1st. Comparing London to, say, Chicago, it seems that the freedom to run around with untracked firearms isn't doing the US any favors. Maybe it's the cultural difference, but I don't see London's rate as "epic" given that they're a city of 8 million souls and US cities with smaller populations have more murders.
But freedom of speech and freedom to be armed are different freedoms.
A) freedom of speech is the most essential freedom (hence, "first" amendment), so I'm not broadening the discussion too much, am I? (aka, slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy)
B) I'm glad that you brought up Chicago, since it's run by leftists and anti-gun politicians, just like every other high crime city in the US and Europe; in fact, just like pretty much every high crime dump in the world is run by leftists. It used to be easy enough to dismiss such silly arguments by saying "Chicago and the rest of Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws", but leftists have a fallacious argument for everything. Fortunately, the leftists' favorite argument of "Chicago's gun crime is caused by the 2nd amendment and the ability to bring guns across state line, etc." doesn't last very long when you consider that the states with the most gun freedom in the US have some of the lowest crime rates (Idaho, Vermont, etc.). Or, are you prepared to offer a theory (other than "cultural differences" - last I checked murder is not an acceptable "culture", or is that the next wave of leftism?) about why people in Idaho and Vermont aren't murdering people due to their nearly unrestricted access to guns and legal ability to carry them in public?
I think you're reversing causality. Wouldn't higher rates of gun-related homicide induce a locale to enact stricter gun laws? And if those gun laws are only partially effective because the problem they're trying to control is systemic and national, you'd end up with the situation you're observing: places with few gun crimes have few laws because they've not been induced to enact them, and places with more gun crime have more laws (but continue to have more gun crime because places with fewer gun laws facilitate unregulated gun markets and transportation costs within the US are extremely low).
The rest of your comments are basically an angry anti-leftist rant that I'm not interested in engaging in. I have Facebook for dealing with political rants, thank you. ;)
I'm not implying causality at all; in fact, my entire point has been to show the exact opposite, that rights (or objects, like guns, the acquisition of which stems from a right) don't cause behaviors. I have the right to eat dirt and drink toilet water, but I don't do either, because neither would be quite right.
So, in Chicago and London, where the crime has been on the rise, a reasonable person cannot blame the increase in crime on guns (esp in London's case, where it would be easier to get your hands on the Ark of the Covenant than a gun).
So, if not guns, what about other policies (welfare, immigration, maybe even other, less controversial etc.)?
(re: rant) Leftists have good ideas (protect the environment, take care of helpless people, etc.), but most leftist ideas require a bigger government and more taxation, as a means to implement them. As a result, government grows, and, because government is itself not governed by the markets, it is by nature inefficient[1], which means it eventually becomes a bloated mess (which can also lead to rising crime, etc.). Acquisition of power eventually becomes the end (see Stalin's Soviet Union, Moa's China, Castro's Cuba).
I'm not sure how you consider blocking 4chan "tyranny" compared to some of the stuff the US government (or any government, for that matter) gets up to?
A good example that could be considered to be overall harmful would be the anti-vax movement. It has spread by speech over social media through patently inaccurate information.
US business owners need to wake up to the fact that their products are seen as publishers, not pipes, and that publishers in most of the world are regulated.