5 ms·

But the EU has much less qualms about restricting and violating the freedom of their citizens. We have no free speech like the US. Massive data collection laws

But the EU has much less qualms about restricting and violating the freedom of their citizens. We have no free speech like the US. Massive data collection laws are passed without any large backlash regularly. I still support aggressive competition from the EU simply because the EU needs to stand on its own legs but don't pretend that it's for privacy of its citizens. I guess maybe if you explain it in a roundabout way, it is for our privacy.. privacy from US institutions, well that counts for something too, sure.

sschueller 10y ago
In the US violating freedoms may appear to be illegal but in the end peoples' freedoms are constantly violated and no one is held accountable. From large illegal meta data collection to secret Prisons and indefinite detention. [1] Until the supreme court gets to uphold the constitution many years pass and many peoples' lives will have been ruined in the meantime. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-d...
- hubert123 10y ago
  Yes, I am well aware which is why I specifically only mentioned the public outcry as a metric.
endisukaj 10y ago
> We have no free speech like the US What?
- akjainaj 10y ago
  Saying things like that the "holocaust" never happened, or preaching against homosexuality (straight from the Holy Bible), is illegal in the EU. http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/crimi...
  - adrinavarro 10y ago
    I'd say that hate speech being banned is not an issue.
    - gcp 10y ago
      What is "hate speech"?
      - espadrine 10y ago
        Hate speech is when someone verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs. Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
        gcp 10y ago
        What's a "harmless feature"? What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
        espadrine 10y ago
        A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial. Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
        gcp 10y ago
        verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs...A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech". QED
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cr1895 10y ago
  A couple EU examples which would have been protected speech in the US: - German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1] - Dutch state enforcing jail sentences for lese majeste [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > - German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1] Wrong? Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech". Article 5, GG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0032 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht... > (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
    - cr1895 10y ago
      >Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech". Please note that I said prosecuted, not convicted, and I said prosecuted for insulting a foreign leader, not for speech. No such law against insulting a foreign leader exists in the US (and now as a result of this provocation it no longer does in Germany).
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Eh, yes, there exist such laws in the US, too. In this case, it’d have been prosecuted as libel/slander/defamation (as only untrue statements designed to hurt the reputation of a foreign leader can be prosecuted in Germany anyway). You’d have the same case in the US.
patrickk 10y ago
> I still support aggressive competition from the EU simply because the EU needs to stand on its own legs but don't pretend that it's for privacy of its citizens. I was more thinking along the lines of immunity from National Security Letters[1], which could be marketed to companies or individuals who want an extra layer of privacy guarantee. For example, here is a quote from Dropbox's 2016 Transparency report[2]: "We believe that those who use online services have a right to know if the government requests their data, and that service providers have a right to notify them of these requests. Often, though, requests for user data are accompanied by court orders preventing Dropbox from providing notice." An EU-based Dropbox clone could market this as a unique selling point, that the above doesn't apply. Swiss banking for your online storage, if you will. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter [2] https://www.dropbox.com/transparency https://www.dropbox.com/transparency
- hubert123 10y ago
  Right but my point is that this can change very easily in the EU. The EU has even fewer problems with violating privacy than the US, that's what I was trying to say. They always talk big about democracy and freedom of speech but we all know that it isn't quite like that in practice. (see: hate speech)
  - CaptainZapp 10y ago
    They always talk big about democracy and freedom of speech but we all know that it isn't quite like that in practice. (see: hate speech) Then again I can legally drink a beer in any public park in most EU countries. Personally I prefer this freedom than being able to legally spout racist, inciting garbage or to deny the holocoust.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      How do you feel about having some easily-offended individual claim what you said is racist, and having it forcibly removed from the net? Or having some malicious person selectively edit what you said? ("Captain Zapp said, 'Personally I prefer... to deny the holocaust'. Censor him!") Don't assume that restrictions on free speech will always be used in good faith against the targets they "should" be used against. These things have a way of expanding their reach. They can reach you sooner than you think.
rmc 10y ago
> We have no free speech like the US. Yes we do. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Every country has limits on what you can say (incl. USA). Perhaps you're just annoyed that Nazis aren't allowed called Holocaust victims liars?
- mrweasel 10y ago
  The EU also has laws that prevent nation from doing mass-surveillance of their citizens, but countries like Denmark just ignore it, calling it "a central investigative tool".

sschueller 10y ago

In the US violating freedoms may appear to be illegal but in the end peoples' freedoms are constantly violated and no one is held accountable. From large illegal meta data collection to secret Prisons and indefinite detention. [1] Until the supreme court gets to uphold the constitution many years pass and many peoples' lives will have been ruined in the meantime. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-d...

hubert123 10y ago
Yes, I am well aware which is why I specifically only mentioned the public outcry as a metric.

endisukaj 10y ago

> We have no free speech like the US What?

akjainaj 10y ago
Saying things like that the "holocaust" never happened, or preaching against homosexuality (straight from the Holy Bible), is illegal in the EU. http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/crimi...
- adrinavarro 10y ago
  I'd say that hate speech being banned is not an issue.
  - gcp 10y ago
    What is "hate speech"?
    - espadrine 10y ago
      Hate speech is when someone verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs. Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
      - gcp 10y ago
        What's a "harmless feature"? What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
        espadrine 10y ago
        A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial. Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
        gcp 10y ago
        verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs...A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech". QED
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cr1895 10y ago
A couple EU examples which would have been protected speech in the US: - German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1] - Dutch state enforcing jail sentences for lese majeste [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B6hmermann_affair [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639
- kuschku 10y ago
  > - German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1] Wrong? Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech". Article 5, GG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0032 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht... > (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
  - cr1895 10y ago
    >Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech". Please note that I said prosecuted, not convicted, and I said prosecuted for insulting a foreign leader, not for speech. No such law against insulting a foreign leader exists in the US (and now as a result of this provocation it no longer does in Germany).
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Eh, yes, there exist such laws in the US, too. In this case, it’d have been prosecuted as libel/slander/defamation (as only untrue statements designed to hurt the reputation of a foreign leader can be prosecuted in Germany anyway). You’d have the same case in the US.

patrickk 10y ago

> I still support aggressive competition from the EU simply because the EU needs to stand on its own legs but don't pretend that it's for privacy of its citizens. I was more thinking along the lines of immunity from National Security Letters[1], which could be marketed to companies or individuals who want an extra layer of privacy guarantee. For example, here is a quote from Dropbox's 2016 Transparency report[2]: "We believe that those who use online services have a right to know if the government requests their data, and that service providers have a right to notify them of these requests. Often, though, requests for user data are accompanied by court orders preventing Dropbox from providing notice." An EU-based Dropbox clone could market this as a unique selling point, that the above doesn't apply. Swiss banking for your online storage, if you will. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter [2] https://www.dropbox.com/transparency https://www.dropbox.com/transparency

hubert123 10y ago
Right but my point is that this can change very easily in the EU. The EU has even fewer problems with violating privacy than the US, that's what I was trying to say. They always talk big about democracy and freedom of speech but we all know that it isn't quite like that in practice. (see: hate speech)
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  They always talk big about democracy and freedom of speech but we all know that it isn't quite like that in practice. (see: hate speech) Then again I can legally drink a beer in any public park in most EU countries. Personally I prefer this freedom than being able to legally spout racist, inciting garbage or to deny the holocoust.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    How do you feel about having some easily-offended individual claim what you said is racist, and having it forcibly removed from the net? Or having some malicious person selectively edit what you said? ("Captain Zapp said, 'Personally I prefer... to deny the holocaust'. Censor him!") Don't assume that restrictions on free speech will always be used in good faith against the targets they "should" be used against. These things have a way of expanding their reach. They can reach you sooner than you think.

rmc 10y ago

> We have no free speech like the US. Yes we do. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Every country has limits on what you can say (incl. USA). Perhaps you're just annoyed that Nazis aren't allowed called Holocaust victims liars?

mrweasel 10y ago
The EU also has laws that prevent nation from doing mass-surveillance of their citizens, but countries like Denmark just ignore it, calling it "a central investigative tool".