4 ms·

Very solid whataboutism. Yes, Europe is not perfect and has some serious problems with freedom. That being said, the first amendment (jurisprudence) in the USA

Very solid whataboutism. Yes, Europe is not perfect and has some serious problems with freedom. That being said, the first amendment (jurisprudence) in the USA suffers from two serious flaws not necessarily suffered by freedom of expression legislation in other countries: 1. The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test. 2. The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor. Because of the 2nd defect, Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship. Book burning is still book burning. Removal of napalm girl is censorship; the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment (jurisprudence) that the USA refuses to acknowledge. The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment, it was created by the courts because "obscenity" was supposedly always understood as not being actual speech.

bostonpete 10y ago
> The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor. I don't consider this a flaw. I wouldn't want government intervening in private websites (like this one) attempts to moderate discussion on the grounds of first amendment rights.
smsm42 10y ago
> The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test. True, that is a problem. I'd say it's smaller problem than "hate speech" ban though - it's quite hard to ban something important to the society under obscenity ban - after all, not a lot in our life depends on being able to see tits (or whatever bits one is personally fascinated with). But it's quite easy to disrupt democratic processes under the guise of fighting "hate speech" - see Russia, for example, with its infamous article 282. I'm not saying US censorship is good - on the contrary, it's despicable. But it's a) less dangerous than European one which has clear political goals of suppressing political opinion and b) clearly goes contrary to a supreme law of the land that states freedom of speech shall not be infringed. > The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor. Well, yes. But only government is an actor that is allowed to use force, so if the government is banned from interfering with your speech, that's a big deal. Of course, private citizens can refuse to talk to you or interact with you because of your speech and that'd suck. But at least they can't force you to stop speaking or jail or harm you for that - or, at least, if they try, the state will be on your side. > Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship No, labeling is fine - it's just that private censorship is different, as per above. Publishing stuff in other place than Facebook is much easier than moving to another country. > Book burning is still book burning. Yes, but if I have bought a book I have the right to burn it. It's my book, I do what I want with it. And anyway, how me burning my own book hurts you? You can buy your own book and not burn it, I don't prevent you from doing it. > the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment Nope. You seem to be misunderstanding what US Constitution is made for. It's a unique document, and often misunderstood. It describes what Federal Government can and (very important) can't do. But it doesn't - and can't - describe what private citizens can and can't do, because it's citizens establishing the Government, not the other way around. So it's not a defect, it is by design that Constitution can not limit private citizen's actions. > The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment, Again, private censorship has nothing to do with First Amendment. The infamous "obscenity exception" and other "exceptions" of the First Amendment invented by various political actors always have one goal - to enable the government to restrict speech. Nobody uses them to make The New Yorker magazine to publish porn - only to ban some other magazine from doing so. First Amendment can't make The New Yorker publish materials they don't want to, but it can protect Penthouse from being shut down by the government for publishing something they do want to.
pessimizer 10y ago
What old European states are your referring to that have an absolutist right to free speech like the 1st Amendment? Our egregious exception for obscenity has been whittled down to bestiality, the sexual use of urine and fecal matter, and having sex with a person who is physically restrained. And even these are unevenly enforced, with Insex and its successor sites in Kink.com making sex with restrained people a brand. There are plenty of places in Europe where you can be jailed for political speech. Britain regularly jails for hate speech, and recently jailed Anjem Choudary for 5 1/2 years for his open and public support of ISIS.
RaleyField 10y ago
> Because of the 2nd defect It's not a defect.

bostonpete 10y ago

> The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor. I don't consider this a flaw. I wouldn't want government intervening in private websites (like this one) attempts to moderate discussion on the grounds of first amendment rights.

smsm42 10y ago

> The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test. True, that is a problem. I'd say it's smaller problem than "hate speech" ban though - it's quite hard to ban something important to the society under obscenity ban - after all, not a lot in our life depends on being able to see tits (or whatever bits one is personally fascinated with). But it's quite easy to disrupt democratic processes under the guise of fighting "hate speech" - see Russia, for example, with its infamous article 282. I'm not saying US censorship is good - on the contrary, it's despicable. But it's a) less dangerous than European one which has clear political goals of suppressing political opinion and b) clearly goes contrary to a supreme law of the land that states freedom of speech shall not be infringed. > The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor. Well, yes. But only government is an actor that is allowed to use force, so if the government is banned from interfering with your speech, that's a big deal. Of course, private citizens can refuse to talk to you or interact with you because of your speech and that'd suck. But at least they can't force you to stop speaking or jail or harm you for that - or, at least, if they try, the state will be on your side. > Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship No, labeling is fine - it's just that private censorship is different, as per above. Publishing stuff in other place than Facebook is much easier than moving to another country. > Book burning is still book burning. Yes, but if I have bought a book I have the right to burn it. It's my book, I do what I want with it. And anyway, how me burning my own book hurts you? You can buy your own book and not burn it, I don't prevent you from doing it. > the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment Nope. You seem to be misunderstanding what US Constitution is made for. It's a unique document, and often misunderstood. It describes what Federal Government can and (very important) can't do. But it doesn't - and can't - describe what private citizens can and can't do, because it's citizens establishing the Government, not the other way around. So it's not a defect, it is by design that Constitution can not limit private citizen's actions. > The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment, Again, private censorship has nothing to do with First Amendment. The infamous "obscenity exception" and other "exceptions" of the First Amendment invented by various political actors always have one goal - to enable the government to restrict speech. Nobody uses them to make The New Yorker magazine to publish porn - only to ban some other magazine from doing so. First Amendment can't make The New Yorker publish materials they don't want to, but it can protect Penthouse from being shut down by the government for publishing something they do want to.

pessimizer 10y ago

What old European states are your referring to that have an absolutist right to free speech like the 1st Amendment? Our egregious exception for obscenity has been whittled down to bestiality, the sexual use of urine and fecal matter, and having sex with a person who is physically restrained. And even these are unevenly enforced, with Insex and its successor sites in Kink.com making sex with restrained people a brand. There are plenty of places in Europe where you can be jailed for political speech. Britain regularly jails for hate speech, and recently jailed Anjem Choudary for 5 1/2 years for his open and public support of ISIS.

RaleyField 10y ago

> Because of the 2nd defect It's not a defect.