3 ms·

Yes. A judge would almost certainly throw this case out if it were in the US. It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more

Yes. A judge would almost certainly throw this case out if it were in the US. It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that. Europe does not have free speech. In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech, from prosecution of satire to the reprehensible "Right to be Forgotten" law.

stale2002 11y ago
Right to be forgotten laws are restrictions on Google search results. O wouldn't put that in the same category as speech restrictions....
domador 11y ago
Restriction on what search results Google can show ARE restrictions on speech. Google is being impeded from speaking in such cases, and those searching are being impeded from hearing.
SilasX 11y ago
>It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that. Well, to be pedantic, courts would probably apply more protections to direct political criticism than to mockery of a political figure him/herself. That is, you would receive more protection for: a) "This is a stupid policy that will harm public welfare" than b) "politician X looks like a monkey". But it's close.
- morgante 11y ago
  To be really pedantic, there are two layers of protection. Political criticism is itself protected, but so is criticism of public figures (regardless of whether that criticism is political or they are even political figures). Politicians are simultaneously public figures and subject to political criticism.
SEMW 11y ago
> Europe does not have free speech. Nonsense. Of course it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... . Eg see [0] for a (successful) ECtHR case in France under A.10 relating to a similar no-insulting-heads-of-state law. My guess it the only reason this one is still on the books is that it's almost never enforced (though IANAL). The ECHR doesn't examine laws proactively - someone has to bring a case - but then, that's the same as the US (and in the US it's apparently not unusual for legislators to attempt to pass laws they know will be overturned once actually used[1]...) > In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech Sure. Same as in the US: [2]. The restrictions in that article seem broadly in the same areas as those in A.10(2). I'm not denying that US free speech protection is stronger than Europe - lines are drawn in a slightly different place: the US has stronger protection of free speech, Europe has stronger protection of privacy, among other things. But this is a long way from "Europe does not have free speech". [0] https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2315/en/colombani-and-others-v.-france https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2315/en/col... [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/tennessee-gov-vetoes-nakedly-unconstitutional-bill-to-make-bible-official-book/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/tennessee-gov-vetoes-nakedly-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

stale2002 11y ago

Right to be forgotten laws are restrictions on Google search results. O wouldn't put that in the same category as speech restrictions....

domador 11y ago

Restriction on what search results Google can show ARE restrictions on speech. Google is being impeded from speaking in such cases, and those searching are being impeded from hearing.

SilasX 11y ago

>It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that. Well, to be pedantic, courts would probably apply more protections to direct political criticism than to mockery of a political figure him/herself. That is, you would receive more protection for: a) "This is a stupid policy that will harm public welfare" than b) "politician X looks like a monkey". But it's close.

morgante 11y ago
To be really pedantic, there are two layers of protection. Political criticism is itself protected, but so is criticism of public figures (regardless of whether that criticism is political or they are even political figures). Politicians are simultaneously public figures and subject to political criticism.

SEMW 11y ago

> Europe does not have free speech. Nonsense. Of course it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... . Eg see [0] for a (successful) ECtHR case in France under A.10 relating to a similar no-insulting-heads-of-state law. My guess it the only reason this one is still on the books is that it's almost never enforced (though IANAL). The ECHR doesn't examine laws proactively - someone has to bring a case - but then, that's the same as the US (and in the US it's apparently not unusual for legislators to attempt to pass laws they know will be overturned once actually used[1]...) > In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech Sure. Same as in the US: [2]. The restrictions in that article seem broadly in the same areas as those in A.10(2). I'm not denying that US free speech protection is stronger than Europe - lines are drawn in a slightly different place: the US has stronger protection of free speech, Europe has stronger protection of privacy, among other things. But this is a long way from "Europe does not have free speech". [0] https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2315/en/colombani-and-others-v.-france https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2315/en/col... [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/tennessee-gov-vetoes-nakedly-unconstitutional-bill-to-make-bible-official-book/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/tennessee-gov-vetoes-nakedly-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...