this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
131 points (98.5% liked)

Europe

1551 readers
564 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46758406

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Good move. Some religious practices shouldn't be legal if they lower public safety. I don't see why couldn't Muslim woman just wear simple Hijabs, if they want to preserve their religious freedom.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Find me data tying veils and low public safety before saying that.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You’re way more likely to be killed by a far-right terrorist than a muslim terrorist. If you want to protect public safety, I feel like a far better way to do it would be to outlaw far-right content on social media and other online platforms.

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

There are already laws in various places which prohibit hate speech, including on the internet. I don't see how banning anything, far-right related or not is a good concept, since someone would be responsible of determining what 'far-right content' is, and that can only cause political repressions of groups that are against current governing power(s). I don't understand why would anyone want to see the censorship and repressions that are on par with ones in Russia. We are better than that.

[–] federalreverse 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So in your world it makes sense to ban pieces of cloth because "they're dangerous" but it doesn't make sense ban hatespeech and divisive content because they "can't be defined"?

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not what I said at all.

[–] federalreverse 0 points 1 week ago

It did sound that way to me. Feel free to correct the words from my previous comment.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for your comment, but I’m a little confused - it’s very easy for nuance to get lost in online comments like this.

Are you saying that you are a supporter of absolute free speech, but you also support banning of certain clothing items, such as religious face coverings?

Or are you saying that you support current prohibitions against hate speech, but you wouldn’t support extending those laws, because you’re against censorship and that would be overstepping your personal red lines?

It seems to me that there is something mutually contradictory in there, but it’s very possible that I am misunderstanding you. To be clear, I’m not criticising you and I’m not interested in arguing or debating with you, I’m just trying to understand. I believe you should be entitled to believe what you want, and that you should be allowed to express your opinion. Personally, what I do have a problem with is online media platforms massively amplifying hateful extremist views to generate engagement.

Hope that makes sense! Feel free to ignore this comment if you don’t want to reply, and I wish you a pleasant day!

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think it has anything to do with public saftey. That wasn't even a major argument during the campaign leading up the vote.

[–] dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Man you bigots have been emboldened lately.

[–] babybus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Can you name me a few cases where a Muslim woman threatened public safety in Switzerland, and then she couldn't be identified because of a burka? I really want to know if there was a problem to solve.

[–] Fleppensteijn@feddit.nl 2 points 2 weeks ago

Probably there's some motivation to be able to identify people who protest or people who don't want to be filmed in public (especially with facial recognition technology becoming a reality).

But just say the law is there to annoy religious people and people will agree to a ban.