3 ms·

It is not true that these are remotely equivalent. US case-law says, you have freedom of speech unless it specifically calls for violence or threatens very, ve

It is not true that these are remotely equivalent. US case-law says, you have freedom of speech unless it specifically calls for violence or threatens very, very, direct harm ie calling "fire" in a theater (and yes, even copyrighted material can be quoted or satirized as necessary to make a political statement). "For the prevention of disorder of crime, for the protection of health and morals for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" -- those are wide, gaping holes which make this statement absolutely useless.

jbuzbee 11y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but as far as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I obviously wouldn't recommend it but it's not so simple: "Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago" http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
nmrm2 11y ago
The US has the same caveats, it's just that the limitations of free speech are decided in case law instead of specifically codified. > For the prevention of disorder of crime There are all sorts of types of speech that are criminal in the US because they are either a crime, or encourage/enable crime in some way. > for the protection of health and morals There are plenty of examples in the US of speech being limited for health reasons. Protection of morals is a bit more of a gray area, but certainly there are historical examples of the US limiting speech for reasons that amount to morality. > for the protection of the reputation or rights of others Again, libel is a crime in the US.
- Abraln 11y ago
  The way it is interpreted is important. I agree that a "health" exemption is used in the US for things like cigarette ads, but as far as "reputation", US courts would laugh at the "right to be forgotten". Basically, in the US, free speech has priority over just about everything else, while most of the EU seems to toss it whenever it comes into conflict with anything else.
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  Libel specifically says you cannot say provably false things. You can ruin a reputation, without lying, without a problem in the US. The difference is evidenced by the "right to be forgotten" ruling in Europe, where the ability to hide past actions was deemed more important than the right to publicize those links / events.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Unless it's about agriculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws (civil burden of proof, and reversed in some places).
- briandh 11y ago
  > Again, libel is a crime in the US. There is no criminal defamation in the U.S. at a federal level, and only a minority of states have such an offense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#C... According to the Wikipedia page said laws are rarely used, though I cannot speak to that myself.

jbuzbee 11y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but as far as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I obviously wouldn't recommend it but it's not so simple: "Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago" http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

nmrm2 11y ago

The US has the same caveats, it's just that the limitations of free speech are decided in case law instead of specifically codified. > For the prevention of disorder of crime There are all sorts of types of speech that are criminal in the US because they are either a crime, or encourage/enable crime in some way. > for the protection of health and morals There are plenty of examples in the US of speech being limited for health reasons. Protection of morals is a bit more of a gray area, but certainly there are historical examples of the US limiting speech for reasons that amount to morality. > for the protection of the reputation or rights of others Again, libel is a crime in the US.

Abraln 11y ago
The way it is interpreted is important. I agree that a "health" exemption is used in the US for things like cigarette ads, but as far as "reputation", US courts would laugh at the "right to be forgotten". Basically, in the US, free speech has priority over just about everything else, while most of the EU seems to toss it whenever it comes into conflict with anything else.
bpodgursky 11y ago
Libel specifically says you cannot say provably false things. You can ruin a reputation, without lying, without a problem in the US. The difference is evidenced by the "right to be forgotten" ruling in Europe, where the ability to hide past actions was deemed more important than the right to publicize those links / events.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Unless it's about agriculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws (civil burden of proof, and reversed in some places).
briandh 11y ago
> Again, libel is a crime in the US. There is no criminal defamation in the U.S. at a federal level, and only a minority of states have such an offense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#C... According to the Wikipedia page said laws are rarely used, though I cannot speak to that myself.