I did say average, and your examples seem like outliers in a lot of ways. I guess I was falling into the trap of only considering "modern" cultures which have their differences but are pretty similar in many others. For instance, the vast majority of Americans (N + S), Asians, Africans, Europeans and Pacific Islanders don't practice child fellatio. You're right that it wouldn't necessarily accommodate certain sub-cultures very well.
But every culture is exceptional in some way, right?
For example, is it a violation of the human rights of African Americans that someone can get up in front of a KKK meeting and advocate genocide, and then defend the statements as protected by the first amendment?[1] The US is quite exceptional there.
Instead most cultures recognize that there is a right not to be harassed politically by private individuals on account of race, religion, etc. and so uncivil discourse including advocating genocide or other hate speech can be regulated. If you post a cartoon in France glorifying 9/11 expect to be prosecuted for "condoning terrorism" (see the case of Denis Leroy whose conviction was upheld by the ECHR).
Your rule, I think, would again move every aspect of culture to the mode, would it not?
[1] In Brandenburg v. Ohio, excerpts held to be protected included "Kill the niggers... we intend to do our part..." as recorded in footnote 1 of the majority opinion. Vile stuff, but the court held that in the absence of actions to imminently incite lawless activity, the words alone were protected. I can't think of any other culture in the world which holds that freedom of speech extends so far.
Many things that seem culturally obvious to us have only been around for a couple generations. Ideals around racism, animal rights, age of consent, death, religion, are all things that many well-educated people take for granted.
Would you rather have KKK meetings in public or private? At least in public they are inspiring conversation and debate about the issues. Restricting the first amendment would allow for a secret KKK which everyone speculates about and rumors materialize out of thin air, that wouldn't be good.
Freedom from persecution for speaking your opinion (whether right or wrong) is probably the greatest freedom we have. Discussion leads to ideas which eventually leads to progress.
> Freedom from persecution for speaking your opinion (whether right or wrong) is probably the greatest freedom we have. Discussion leads to ideas which eventually leads to progress.
Sure. But if nationality no longer matters, then everyone else gets a say in how far we recognize this, right? That's my point really. If we are so sure nationality no longer matters and we should be one global culture, are we going to be happy with the tradeoff? I don't think we would.
BTW the other is just as valid. My wife is Chinese-Indonesian and she and I have shared what are essentially very foreign views with eachother regarding these sorts of things. I can say without a doubt that American culture in this area is not something that you just show people and they come running to.
But if nationality no longer matters, then everyone else gets a say in how far we recognize this, right?
Just as a little sanity check here: could you please define what you mean when you use the word "nationalism"? Because that's not what I take it to mean.
I dunno man, just offering my take.