[pickledoyster]

>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand.

I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society.

[aydyn]

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

[Braxton1980]

A regime attempting to kill a large group of people is also oppressive and much worse. If the regime is able to do this because of speech then people are choosing the least worst option.

[oscaracso]

A regime is an organization.

[atoav]

It can be. But there can be speech where most reasonable people would agree that it should be regulated. E.g. if some dude walks up to your 5 year old child and starts to tell them in intricate detail about his violent sexual fantasy, pretty much everybody notices that the kids right not to have to hear this outweighs the adults edgy itch to do this to a child.

And a lot of speech is like this, nearly no speech is consequence free. I am not saying we should ban any speech that has negative consequences. What I am saying is that with other rights we also have to way the active freedoms of one person ("the freedom to do a thing") against the passive freedoms of all the others ("the freedom to not have a thing done to you").

With other rights it is the same, you may have a right to carry a firearm and even shoot it. But if you shoot it for example in church, other peoples right not to have to deal with you shooting that gun in that church outweighs your right to do that.

In the German speaking part of the EU we decided that the right of literal Nazis to carry their insignia doesn't outweigh the right of the others to not have to see the insignia that have brought so much pain and suffering in these lands. To some degree this is symbolic, because it only bans symbols and not ideologies, but hey, I like my government to protect my state from a fascist takeover, because they are kind of hard to reverse without violence.

[jszymborski]

Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.

I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal.

A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air.

So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is.

EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

   Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

[wakawaka28]

Nope, that's giving them too much credit. Censorship is oppressive except in very narrow circumstances. Free speech is actually the safety valve in society. Censorship is one of the hallmarks of a tyrannical regime, and is incompatible with democracy.

[alphazard]

> not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society.

This strikes me as just incorrect. What example from history shows totalitarianism being successfully avoided because of controls on speech?

The first item in the totalitarian playbook is controlling speech, and there are historical examples of that in every single totalitarian regime that I'm aware of.

[9dev]

Well I can tell you from day-to-day experience in Germany that the fact it’s illegal to say „Heil Hitler“ and similar nazi slogans draws a very clear line between ordinary citizens and right extremists. It’s a good thing nobody can walk around and loudly proclaim their veneration for the darkest period in our history, for doing so makes them an enemy of our democracy and everything it stands for. A society has to have limits to the tolerable, and defend them.

This has worked well for more than half a century here, and I assure you that Germany hasn’t succumbed to a totalitarian regime yet. Quite the opposite to some, erm, land of the free that seems to struggle a lot with freedom lately.