3 ms·

And yet Reporters Without Borders rates the US down at #43 when it comes to press freedom, marginally below the UK at #40. https://rsf.org/en/united-states htt

by vacri 9y ago

And yet Reporters Without Borders rates the US down at #43 when it comes to press freedom, marginally below the UK at #40. https://rsf.org/en/united-states https://rsf.org/en/united-states An example of why it rates so low: https://rsf.org/en/news/us-rsf-concerned-second-wave-journalist-arrests-st-louis https://rsf.org/en/news/us-rsf-concerned-second-wave-journal... Also, while the First Amendment is good to have, it's not as absolute as its fans make out. There are plenty of restrictions on free speech in the US - libel/slander, obscenity, official and military secrets, insider trading, incitement, 'fighting words', intellectual property violations (a big one, thanks Disney), National Security Letters (yay 'warrant canaries')... and then there's things like 'free speech zones' (aka "time, place, and manner restrictions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time.2C_place.2C_and_manner_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...). Some of those are good things to have, but nevertheless, not all of them are, and they're still 'government restrictions on speech'. Again, the First Amendment is good to have, but people need to stop quoting it like it's a vaccine against loss of freedom of speech. The actual situation is a lot more complex.

freedomben 9y ago
AFA libel/slander laws, I think there is a difference between having the freedom to speak it, and the freedom from consequences of speaking it. Causing real damage to a person by lying or misrepresenting them isn't quite the same as simply voicing opposition to ruling party policy. Regarding consequences, I have the right to tell my boss to go to hell, and him firing me for that isn't a violation of my freedom of speech. The government throwing me in jail for it would be though. Military secrets and the like are also different, because you sign an agreement saying you will keep the secrets. Prosecution therefore isn't done under restriction of speech, it's for breach of contract. You have a good point on things like incitement and "fighting words" tho. And I agree that we in the US are far from the ideal of truly free speech. There's a lot of ways around it that the government has come up with over the years.
- vacri 9y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the First Amendment. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex that people usually appreciate. The First Amendment is just a plank in the arena of 'free spech', it's not the source of it (after all, free speech exists in countries that don't have the US constitution). I mean, take your example of the boss firing you for saying 'go to hell'. It doesn't make sense; it doesn't make any real-world differentiation to other countries. In what western democracy do people get jailed for telling their boss to go to hell? You have to go to some pretty extreme authoritarian states before you start to get to behaviour like that. My point is that merely quoting the First Amendment is not sufficient to carry an argument on free speech. There are lots of indirect ways to suppress speech, and I gave an example link. That's why the US isn't up at #1. I mean, look at the rest of the US Bill of Rights. Amendments 1 and 2 are the poster-children, though 1 isn't perfect as we're discussing. The third amendment is now utterly irrelevant. The fourth amendment is routinely ignored, given things like 'civil forfeiture' and SWATting. Fifth amendment is mostly intact, excluding again things like 'civil forfeiture'. The sixth amendment is sick and dying, with plea bargaining replacing the vast bulk of trials, and trials hardly being called 'speedy' these days. Seventh I don't know much about. Eighth is long gone, with extremely long sentences given out to poor people for non-violent crimes, and frequently ridiculous sums given for bail. The ninth is a curio pertaining to law. The tenth is a source of lots of controversy, with all sorts of arguments about what is states rights and what is not. What I'm trying to get at with all that waffle is that despite these things being "enshrined" in the constitution, it doesn't mean that that's the way society behaves. "It's in the constitution, therefore it must be so!" is not always the case.
  - freedomben 9y ago
    I totally agree with your analysis :-) I wish there were a way to get people to care more about their rights, but I have no ideas.
koenigdavidmj 9y ago
We don’t have D-notices, and most of the restrictions you listed exist in a more abusive sense in the UK (plus stronger defamation laws and hate speech).
- vacri 9y ago
  What about the 39 nations above the UK in the RSF listings? My point was that the First Amendment is not the only legal control on freedom of speech in the US; merely adopting that one line of law doesn't make the rest disappear.

by vacri 9y ago

freedomben 9y ago

AFA libel/slander laws, I think there is a difference between having the freedom to speak it, and the freedom from consequences of speaking it. Causing real damage to a person by lying or misrepresenting them isn't quite the same as simply voicing opposition to ruling party policy. Regarding consequences, I have the right to tell my boss to go to hell, and him firing me for that isn't a violation of my freedom of speech. The government throwing me in jail for it would be though. Military secrets and the like are also different, because you sign an agreement saying you will keep the secrets. Prosecution therefore isn't done under restriction of speech, it's for breach of contract. You have a good point on things like incitement and "fighting words" tho. And I agree that we in the US are far from the ideal of truly free speech. There's a lot of ways around it that the government has come up with over the years.

vacri 9y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the First Amendment. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex that people usually appreciate. The First Amendment is just a plank in the arena of 'free spech', it's not the source of it (after all, free speech exists in countries that don't have the US constitution). I mean, take your example of the boss firing you for saying 'go to hell'. It doesn't make sense; it doesn't make any real-world differentiation to other countries. In what western democracy do people get jailed for telling their boss to go to hell? You have to go to some pretty extreme authoritarian states before you start to get to behaviour like that. My point is that merely quoting the First Amendment is not sufficient to carry an argument on free speech. There are lots of indirect ways to suppress speech, and I gave an example link. That's why the US isn't up at #1. I mean, look at the rest of the US Bill of Rights. Amendments 1 and 2 are the poster-children, though 1 isn't perfect as we're discussing. The third amendment is now utterly irrelevant. The fourth amendment is routinely ignored, given things like 'civil forfeiture' and SWATting. Fifth amendment is mostly intact, excluding again things like 'civil forfeiture'. The sixth amendment is sick and dying, with plea bargaining replacing the vast bulk of trials, and trials hardly being called 'speedy' these days. Seventh I don't know much about. Eighth is long gone, with extremely long sentences given out to poor people for non-violent crimes, and frequently ridiculous sums given for bail. The ninth is a curio pertaining to law. The tenth is a source of lots of controversy, with all sorts of arguments about what is states rights and what is not. What I'm trying to get at with all that waffle is that despite these things being "enshrined" in the constitution, it doesn't mean that that's the way society behaves. "It's in the constitution, therefore it must be so!" is not always the case.
- freedomben 9y ago
  I totally agree with your analysis :-) I wish there were a way to get people to care more about their rights, but I have no ideas.

koenigdavidmj 9y ago

We don’t have D-notices, and most of the restrictions you listed exist in a more abusive sense in the UK (plus stronger defamation laws and hate speech).

vacri 9y ago
What about the 39 nations above the UK in the RSF listings? My point was that the First Amendment is not the only legal control on freedom of speech in the US; merely adopting that one line of law doesn't make the rest disappear.