8 ms·

Personal feelings aside, I think this is quite indicative of European and the US values. The US generally values the freedom to, while Europe values freedom fro

Personal feelings aside, I think this is quite indicative of European and the US values. The US generally values the freedom to, while Europe values freedom from. Things obviously get more complicated when multiple parties are in play, but those seem like the fundamental properties on which the laws are built.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
Which is ironic since freedoms as specified in the american constitution are freedoms from. It does not grant people freedoms, instead it assumes as evident that people have those freedoms and imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  The problem is that it only imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms; while an affirmative "freedom from X" guarantee applies to everyone who might infringe that freedom. Your fellow citizens can be just as harmful to your freedoms as the gov't; and actually maintaining any freedom requires actively limiting the freedom of other people to infringe on that, and enforcing that limitation.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    How? Less gov limitations? You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things we want to remember that the gov can never do (see it's preamble), it's a bit of a bug that it's called that. Gov is special, we _give_ it the ability to use violence to enforce the rules we set. Corporations don't get to use violence to enforce their rules (unless they buy the gov in a country without the 2ndA). It's a real difference. We are not forced to use a private service (which is why conservatives are so anti forced "health care"), nobody is required to use FB, or YT. Only confused (or ill) people think they are. A properly functioning system of exchange regulates this via monetary physics. FB is going to be myspace sooner or later. People learn from their mistakes if they have the freedom to make them.
    - rectang 9y ago
      You say that like the US government serves the interests of people-people and not corporation-people.
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        Anyone can incorporate. If that's the distinction, then it's meaningless.
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        This kind of corruption in the case of the USA seems quite simple to solve. You've made it legal to buy politicians, how about changing that back? It's a start...
        jakeogh 9y ago
        How do you propose to do it? Limit contributions by corporations? I don't see the distinction, corporations are people, I can become a one man corporation by clicking a few buttons. Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
        fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > Money like code, is ultimately speech Money is speech and bribes are just conversations, right? "Money is speech" is a propaganda talking point pushed by those who benefit from having a lot of people eating it up. People like you. > I don't see the distinction, corporations are people Your idealogical zeal prevents you from seeing the distinction. Corporations have the buying power that people don't have, and are able to position themselves to take advantage of individual pieces of legislation to a degree that covers their politician buying plus profit. Isn't this obvious?
        jakeogh 9y ago
        If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. I could start throwing labels about your POV, but that would be a good indication that I don't have a real point to make. Saying corporations are different because they have buying power that people don't have is incorrect. There are plenty of people that can and do vastly outspend most corporations. They do this by making many corporations and using those to socially engineer the target population instead of contributing directly (this is why money is speech). It also ignores the point that corporations are made of people, and people have one vote. Politicians that do what a small group wants (a corp) vs their larger constituency get voted out (Cantored' in recent US lingo).
  - rhacker 9y ago
    I definitely get this argument. In the US it is quite common for people to blast their music from their cars. It gives them "freedom to" blast their music. However it definitely takes away my "freedom from" having to hear that shit. And I think this is why young people are libs and older people are more conservative - probably the exact reason actually. When I was young I never blasted my music, but I also didn't care if others did. Now I'm older and I definitely hate hearing other's music blasting everywhere - no matter where I am. So I NOW want a government that would limit others blasting their music. It really sucks that simple things like are also things people go to war for. I'm not kidding, if the government tomorrow issued a decree saying that blasting music is punishable by 10 years in prison, the US would literally be at war and millions would die. Instead we settle for individual cities making noise ordinances and hoping that it's not challenged in court.
    - deong 9y ago
      It's interesting that, to my eye at least, we've flipped that dynamic completely. Generalizing a bit from stereos, you're talking about government limiting the rights of individuals to maintain a common good. To the extent that either end of the political spectrum can be said to support that, it's the younger, more liberal side. Modern conservatives are flying their Gadsden flags.
- elcapitan 9y ago
  Doesn't "freedom to" usually mean that you're enabled to do something (for example when you come from a less affluent background and the state helps you to make career with public universities). Not the "freedom to" do to other people whatever you want.
CaliforniaKarl 9y ago
I think that’s fine (though I live in the US, so that’s not really a surprise). The problem is, when your “freedom to X” hits a case where you actually _can’t_, then you need to stop immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... comes to mind here.
doe88 9y ago
Yes this is a main difference between US and Europe, in the US there is a strong first amendment, in Europe there is no such thing, many of these countries have strong defamation and hate speech laws, as well as in this case the european law of right to be forgotten. Im European but Im envious of the first amendment, for all its faults I think it's better.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  I get a bit weary about companies abusing the first ammendment in order to lie to and fleece their customers and the public.
- bitwize 9y ago
  Given the fact that the U.S. has no useful bans on hate speech and that has allowed white supremacism to grow and fester within this country to the point where Trump is now President, you might want to rethink that.
  - gowld 9y ago
    You would learn a lot from a summer travel across Europe.
  - nugi 9y ago
    Free speech isn't worth it because some people think they are better than others? Is that your argument, or am I misunderstanding?
    - bitwize 9y ago
      Free speech is important, but like any right it must be balanced against society's interests -- in this case, the interest society has in not going full Nazi. Again, in Germany's case. Despite having bans on certain kinds of speech, Germany is overall freer than the USA, and scores higher on every free-press index that matters.
- userbinator 9y ago
  The "right to be forgotten" just seems far too close to "right to rewrite history", which is greatly disturbing. To borrow computer science terminology, I think "history should be append-only."
gaius 9y ago
That’s the exact opposite of the Napoleonic code, tho’
soneil 9y ago
I generalize it as the US protects companies, the EU protects people. It sounds backwards as the US leans more towards personal freedoms than societal freedoms, but the most powerful amendments don't protect people outright. They just protect them from the government.
- V-2 9y ago
  > I generalize it as the US protects companies, the EU protects people. And as is often the case with sweeping generalizations, it stereotypizes and oversimplifies reality. Eg. read about the toll the infamous thalidomide took in Germany vs. in the US, and for what reasons. The Wikipedia article is comprehensive - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide One of the interesting bits: > After the Nazi regime with its Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring used mandatory statistical monitoring to commit various crimes, western Germany had been very reluctant to monitor congenital disorders in a similarly strict way.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Is 1950’s Germany relavent here?
    - V-2 9y ago
      We're talking about fundamental (European vs. American) values, so why not? The whole concept may be flawed, but if we accept their existence - for argument's sake - then they shouldn't be assumed to change every ten years or so.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        Every hundred years? Every thousand? The people who hold European values today, whatever that might mean, today aren’t the same people from 100 years ago.
        9y ago
s0rce 9y ago
I've heard this so many times as the reason conservatives don't want to restrict guns because Americans want "freedom to" but then they conveniently ignore this belief when they want to restrict abortion and gay marriage. Both of these could easily fall under "freedom to", even more so since it doesn't hurt others like guns. Basically, it only seems to apply when its convenient.
- hoelle 9y ago
  You lack diversity of perspective. Abortion is definitely harmful to a human life. (Some) religious conservatives believe gay marriage is harmful to society. Before reducing everything to partisan politics, try some empathy.
  - danso 9y ago
    Abortion rights are predicated on not seeing a fetus as a “human life”. You may not agree with that, but if fetsuses were seen as a human life, then abortions would by definition be homicides.
    - klez 9y ago
      If it was the only consideration that differentiates between a medical procedure and a homicide, euthanasia or the death penalty wouldn't be legal in some places.
      - danso 9y ago
        Homicide is legal in certain circumstances -- justifiable homicide (self-defense) or police-involved fatalities. Death penalty is usually defined as the execution of a human offender.
        klez 9y ago
        That's my point. If the only legal difference was "a fetus is a human life" that wouldn't be sufficient to consider it homicide. At least that's my impression.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago

Which is ironic since freedoms as specified in the american constitution are freedoms from. It does not grant people freedoms, instead it assumes as evident that people have those freedoms and imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms.

PeterisP 9y ago
The problem is that it only imposes limitations on the government to infringe those freedoms; while an affirmative "freedom from X" guarantee applies to everyone who might infringe that freedom. Your fellow citizens can be just as harmful to your freedoms as the gov't; and actually maintaining any freedom requires actively limiting the freedom of other people to infringe on that, and enforcing that limitation.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  How? Less gov limitations? You cant have it both ways. Limits on government force are inverse to limits on it's people. The Bill Of Rights is a list of things we want to remember that the gov can never do (see it's preamble), it's a bit of a bug that it's called that. Gov is special, we _give_ it the ability to use violence to enforce the rules we set. Corporations don't get to use violence to enforce their rules (unless they buy the gov in a country without the 2ndA). It's a real difference. We are not forced to use a private service (which is why conservatives are so anti forced "health care"), nobody is required to use FB, or YT. Only confused (or ill) people think they are. A properly functioning system of exchange regulates this via monetary physics. FB is going to be myspace sooner or later. People learn from their mistakes if they have the freedom to make them.
  - rectang 9y ago
    You say that like the US government serves the interests of people-people and not corporation-people.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Anyone can incorporate. If that's the distinction, then it's meaningless.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      This kind of corruption in the case of the USA seems quite simple to solve. You've made it legal to buy politicians, how about changing that back? It's a start...
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        How do you propose to do it? Limit contributions by corporations? I don't see the distinction, corporations are people, I can become a one man corporation by clicking a few buttons. Money like code, is ultimately speech. I'll take that any day over the alternative limitations as long as we have legit voting and non-forced spending of money.
        fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        > Money like code, is ultimately speech Money is speech and bribes are just conversations, right? "Money is speech" is a propaganda talking point pushed by those who benefit from having a lot of people eating it up. People like you. > I don't see the distinction, corporations are people Your idealogical zeal prevents you from seeing the distinction. Corporations have the buying power that people don't have, and are able to position themselves to take advantage of individual pieces of legislation to a degree that covers their politician buying plus profit. Isn't this obvious?
        jakeogh 9y ago
        If there is a legit distinction between speech and conversations, you didn't make it or I missed it. I could start throwing labels about your POV, but that would be a good indication that I don't have a real point to make. Saying corporations are different because they have buying power that people don't have is incorrect. There are plenty of people that can and do vastly outspend most corporations. They do this by making many corporations and using those to socially engineer the target population instead of contributing directly (this is why money is speech). It also ignores the point that corporations are made of people, and people have one vote. Politicians that do what a small group wants (a corp) vs their larger constituency get voted out (Cantored' in recent US lingo).
- rhacker 9y ago
  I definitely get this argument. In the US it is quite common for people to blast their music from their cars. It gives them "freedom to" blast their music. However it definitely takes away my "freedom from" having to hear that shit. And I think this is why young people are libs and older people are more conservative - probably the exact reason actually. When I was young I never blasted my music, but I also didn't care if others did. Now I'm older and I definitely hate hearing other's music blasting everywhere - no matter where I am. So I NOW want a government that would limit others blasting their music. It really sucks that simple things like are also things people go to war for. I'm not kidding, if the government tomorrow issued a decree saying that blasting music is punishable by 10 years in prison, the US would literally be at war and millions would die. Instead we settle for individual cities making noise ordinances and hoping that it's not challenged in court.
  - deong 9y ago
    It's interesting that, to my eye at least, we've flipped that dynamic completely. Generalizing a bit from stereos, you're talking about government limiting the rights of individuals to maintain a common good. To the extent that either end of the political spectrum can be said to support that, it's the younger, more liberal side. Modern conservatives are flying their Gadsden flags.
elcapitan 9y ago
Doesn't "freedom to" usually mean that you're enabled to do something (for example when you come from a less affluent background and the state helps you to make career with public universities). Not the "freedom to" do to other people whatever you want.

CaliforniaKarl 9y ago

I think that’s fine (though I live in the US, so that’s not really a surprise). The problem is, when your “freedom to X” hits a case where you actually _can’t_, then you need to stop immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... comes to mind here.

doe88 9y ago

Yes this is a main difference between US and Europe, in the US there is a strong first amendment, in Europe there is no such thing, many of these countries have strong defamation and hate speech laws, as well as in this case the european law of right to be forgotten. Im European but Im envious of the first amendment, for all its faults I think it's better.

CaptainZapp 9y ago
I get a bit weary about companies abusing the first ammendment in order to lie to and fleece their customers and the public.
bitwize 9y ago
Given the fact that the U.S. has no useful bans on hate speech and that has allowed white supremacism to grow and fester within this country to the point where Trump is now President, you might want to rethink that.
- gowld 9y ago
  You would learn a lot from a summer travel across Europe.
- nugi 9y ago
  Free speech isn't worth it because some people think they are better than others? Is that your argument, or am I misunderstanding?
  - bitwize 9y ago
    Free speech is important, but like any right it must be balanced against society's interests -- in this case, the interest society has in not going full Nazi. Again, in Germany's case. Despite having bans on certain kinds of speech, Germany is overall freer than the USA, and scores higher on every free-press index that matters.
userbinator 9y ago
The "right to be forgotten" just seems far too close to "right to rewrite history", which is greatly disturbing. To borrow computer science terminology, I think "history should be append-only."

gaius 9y ago

That’s the exact opposite of the Napoleonic code, tho’

soneil 9y ago

I generalize it as the US protects companies, the EU protects people. It sounds backwards as the US leans more towards personal freedoms than societal freedoms, but the most powerful amendments don't protect people outright. They just protect them from the government.

V-2 9y ago
> I generalize it as the US protects companies, the EU protects people. And as is often the case with sweeping generalizations, it stereotypizes and oversimplifies reality. Eg. read about the toll the infamous thalidomide took in Germany vs. in the US, and for what reasons. The Wikipedia article is comprehensive - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide One of the interesting bits: > After the Nazi regime with its Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring used mandatory statistical monitoring to commit various crimes, western Germany had been very reluctant to monitor congenital disorders in a similarly strict way.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Is 1950’s Germany relavent here?
  - V-2 9y ago
    We're talking about fundamental (European vs. American) values, so why not? The whole concept may be flawed, but if we accept their existence - for argument's sake - then they shouldn't be assumed to change every ten years or so.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      Every hundred years? Every thousand? The people who hold European values today, whatever that might mean, today aren’t the same people from 100 years ago.
      - 9y ago

s0rce 9y ago

I've heard this so many times as the reason conservatives don't want to restrict guns because Americans want "freedom to" but then they conveniently ignore this belief when they want to restrict abortion and gay marriage. Both of these could easily fall under "freedom to", even more so since it doesn't hurt others like guns. Basically, it only seems to apply when its convenient.

hoelle 9y ago
You lack diversity of perspective. Abortion is definitely harmful to a human life. (Some) religious conservatives believe gay marriage is harmful to society. Before reducing everything to partisan politics, try some empathy.
- danso 9y ago
  Abortion rights are predicated on not seeing a fetus as a “human life”. You may not agree with that, but if fetsuses were seen as a human life, then abortions would by definition be homicides.
  - klez 9y ago
    If it was the only consideration that differentiates between a medical procedure and a homicide, euthanasia or the death penalty wouldn't be legal in some places.
    - danso 9y ago
      Homicide is legal in certain circumstances -- justifiable homicide (self-defense) or police-involved fatalities. Death penalty is usually defined as the execution of a human offender.
      - klez 9y ago
        That's my point. If the only legal difference was "a fetus is a human life" that wouldn't be sufficient to consider it homicide. At least that's my impression.