We have free speech, just not as broad as in USA. Stuff like Westboro Babtist Church would fall under what would loosely translate to "incitement against a group", but keep in mind that some countries don't have gender specific third singular pronoun, so it all seems silly because the concept is not familiar to them.

What I hear in this thread:

"You people are so bigoted by not accepting these people where they are."
"Now call them how they want to be called or you should be arrested for abuse."

Tolerance at its finest.

What I hear in this thread:

"I have so little contact with reality that I am actually arguing with a straight face that other people should not be ALLOWED to speak opinions I don't like. On the basis that I may harm myself! Not that I'm a terrorist or anything!"

A healthy person adapts to their environment and thrives, whether that involves conflict or not. An unhealthy person expects everyone else to change for them, and plays the victim (perhaps) all their life.

This was fun!

When you cite "freedom of speech" in your defence, it means that the only thing your argument has going for it is that it's not technically illegal for you to make it.

Really, even when the 'prosecutions' attack is all about limiting your freedom of speech?

Moron.

As opposed to the counterargument that it is basically "not nice."

meh. Reality isn't necessarily 'nice'.

Mendax,

Nobody is citing "freedom of speech" for anything except in opposition to the claim, first made by orathaic (I think) that there was NOT legal freedom to use such speech.

As such, it's highly on-point, and says nothing at all about arguments for the desireability of given speech, which people on this thread are also arguing for back and forth.

@semck: "I don't really think you do have free speech in Europe."

what?

"meh. Reality isn't necessarily 'nice'."

And your arguement is then, 'i have no intention of making it so'

Cause that just makes you an asshole.

@smeck: on free speech; the point is to be allowed to criticise the government (and presumably others in power) to prevent abuse of that power. We have in Europe a robust form of free speech. And as for what would legally count as abuse; that's not a very strong arguement for it being right.

@ora, it's not an argument for it being right at all, actually. It's just an argument against it being legal abuse (which you stated it was).

"What I hear in this thread: "You people are so bigoted by not accepting these people where they are."
"Now call them how they want to be called or you should be arrested for
abuse." Tolerance at its finest.

"

Tolerance? No, i have no tolerance for people who knowingly damage others. I don't care for your opinion, you are free to hold it; i care for how your actions impact others. And the first principle of a liberty is freedom up until your actions harm others. That is why murder is illegal.

Try re-reading this thread in that light.

@kasimax,

Europe tends to have a lot more viewpoint-based restrictions on speech than the US would ever tolerate. (Arguably, the US tolerates none, although you could say that prohibiting slander is a viewpoint-based restriction). Once such things are tolerated, speech is no longer really free I think -- it is just at the good pleasure of the government to continue to allow the particular speech at issue, for now.

Of course, on the spectrum of places with viewpoint restrictions, Europe is still relatively liberal.

ora, I don't think you can really argue that the parents here "knowingly damaged" their child. They believed what they were doing was best for him.

Also, once again, your "first principle of liberty" is overbroad. Plenty of legal and free actions harm others. If I gamble at cards or in the stock market and win, I have in some sense harmed those whose money I took (but they freely engaged). The first principle of liberty is is freedom up until you infringe the rights of others.

@semck: are you referring to specific countries? i live in austria, and the only law that i can think of that closely resembles what you are talking about is the "verbotsgesetz" (what a name!) which prohibits, loosely speaking, holocaust denial and belittlement of nazi atrocities. that is a restriction of free speech, true, but other than that, i don't know what you're referring to.

You have a point smeck - from my knowledge of letal definitions of abuse (in ireland and the uk, where i have done child protection stuff) abuse is a vague idea which is measured by mental, emotional or physical development as compared with peers. If an individual if being neglected, they will fall behind in those things.

It is very hard to say what exactly will be considered abuse because you talk about the effects to measure it.

And the effects we're talking about here include suicide. Pretty damaging. In this one case, i suppose you could ask if what the parents did was abuse.

In general, bullying can lead to suicide; it is clearly wrong and damaging. There seems to be some assholes here who support that, maybe they'll come up with a tough love explaination next... But in principle, you shouldn't cause harm where you don't have to.

The increase in attempted suicide rate among trans people is highly coorelated with a number of social issues. The least among these is a systematic undermining of their personal identities. It is also the easiest for people to address.

kasimax,

Yes, the laws against holocaust denial are an obvious example of what I'm talking about. Rather broad hate speech laws are another example. These vary from country to country, obviously, but they exist in some fairly strong form in a lot of European countries.

alright, i get where you're coming from.

"ora, I don't think you can really argue that the parents here "knowingly
damaged" their child. They believed what they were doing was best for him."

Fair enough, but i'm claiming that misgendering trans people does them harm; and that people in this forum are arguing in favour of knowingly doing this. Instead of respecting individuals.

". If I gamble at cards or in the stock market and
win, I have in some sense harmed those whose money I took"

False analogy - their freedom to engage in gambling was not to be infringed - in this sense they are allowed harm themselves.

Well, I can also buy a company and fire all the employees. The list goes on. Harming other people is not the correct criterion for illegal behavior in a free society. Good grief, half of relationships in the country would be illegal -- not because they're abusive, but because people get hurt even when non-abusive relationships go bad. There's a reason a rights-based framework is used for these things. The analysis is intractable otherwise.

People still willingly go into these relationships. They don't have to make that choice and they do so knowing the risk.

But if you think rights is the thing, let me find one.

How about the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Or maybe this one on degrading treatment: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Thatb is article 5 btw.

So they should, of course; but that is short of saying there is a right to be treated that way. (Notice the difference in language, for example, from Article 2).

I'm sure, though, that you can find somebody who will assert the right not to be offended. I disagree with the existence of such a right, though.

Though not discussed here this right may is violated in a majority of US states: ") Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

orathaic,

I wouldn't see the treatment at issue as even remotely close to what article 5 is talking about. That you would just underscores the importance of more careful drafting than the Universal Declaration received.

No, it's obviously not. When the Universal Declaration was written, marriage unambiguously referred to a union of a man and a woman, something underscored, indeed, by the phrasing of the sentence. You're being revisionist.

Incidentally, you didn't address my "buy a company and fire the employees" example.

No, article 5; degrading treatment - simple clear right.

Undermining a persons identity is degrading, almost by definition.

Once or twice in the course of your week isn't a problem, but everyday by every person you meet takes a toll on anyone.

And i am arguing merely that you don't need to be part of this systematic abuse; infact it is a very easy choice to make.