5 ms·

I thought EU countries don't have a legal right to free speech?

• joejerryronnie 8y ago
  Well, you can pass laws blatantly targeting a major world religion, you just can't talk about it out loud.
  • petepete 8y ago
    > Well, you can pass laws blatantly targeting a major world religion Which one would that be?
    • toolslive 8y ago
      It's more dangerous to target a certain minor religion ( ~14.5e+6 followers )
      • ben_w 8y ago
        People targeting that religion are what ended up causing the human rights laws that say we shouldn’t target religions. I think also the right to join a trade union, though that might have something to do with who was on the winning side in the war that made all of this an issue anyone really cared about.
    • mschuster91 8y ago
      > Which one would that be? Anti-burqa laws, e.g. in Austria.
• pjc50 8y ago
  ECHR article 10: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_C...
• ben_w 8y ago
  We do, by way of Article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_C...
  • anothergoogler 8y ago
    > restrictions ... for the protection of health or morals, ... preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, ... Sounds legit.
    • throwawayjava 8y ago
      > for the protection of health or morals The 1st amendment has a similar set of exceptions (morals: [1, 2]; health: [3, 4]). > preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence Several of the exceptions discussed in [5] apply here. Some speech about non-gov't secrets is also not protected by the 1st. Two examples include anything the court decides is not of public interest (e.g., DeCSS), and publication of recordings or transcriptions without prior consent (in some states). And then there's the most obvious historical exception to the First Amendment: being too dark in any century except this one. The differences between the EU and the US are much more attributable to political culture. The massive and obvious failures of the First Amendment's protections in previous centuries demonstrate that the constitutional text itself plays only a small role; the political culture that ultimately interprets the text is also important. Mistaking the First Amendment for a permanent, carte blanc, or unambiguous license to free speech willfully ignores the fact that the force of the document is inseparable from the political and governmental culture entrusted with its care, and that ALL current and previous political cultures have interpreted the First Amendment in a way that DOES restrict speech for "the protection of health or morals". and for "preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence". It is the degree to which these tradeoffs are made, not the mere existence of the tradeoffs, that differentiates the First Amendment from Article 10. And to see how those tradeoffs are made, you have to go beyond the text and delve into case law. -- [1] https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/ObscenityFirstAmendment.htm https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Restrictions_based_on_special_capacity_of_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...