7 ms·

> they don't have freedom of speech I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that. For example, even in places with "absolute freedom

by omeid2 8y ago

> they don't have freedom of speech I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that. For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

dgellow 8y ago
> There is also laws around hate speech and so forth. Not in the US (as far as I understand). See the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... > In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes: > “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).”
- confounded 8y ago
  There are still limits in the US. You have to promise that you’ve never been a member of a communist party on entry. It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated. Absolute freedom of speech doesn’t really exist anywhere. The US is probably one of the most liberal countries on earth when it comes to policing it, but it’s not like anyone can say anything.
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    > People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated. Since when? How would that even work? The president orders the NSA to generate a list of disagreeable film makers and journalists and passes it to the TSA and customs? Do you have any evidence for that claim at all? > It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. Those are not free speech issues. It is not illegal to talk about bombs at an airport or to threaten the president. Just because you shouldn't does mean you're not free - freedom from consequences isn't the same as freedom of action. Restricted speech is exceedingly rare and, to my knowledge, only applies to public safety (falsely yelling fire in a theatre) and inciting violence (rallying everyone to get weapons and go shoot cops)
    - santaragolabs 8y ago
      No-one said anything about the president or the NSA being involved. There are tons of ways this can work. And it actually happens. Just once you're flagged and are inside The Machine you get detained upon entry whilst they confiscate your devices, try to see where you've been etc. Lookup the wikipedia page of Laura Poitras who for years lived in Berlin due to USA government surveillance. And this started way before her involvement with Snowden as a filmmaker.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      How would that even work? This works through a mechanism called a "terror watch list" For example, imagine you're a Youtuber and you make a serious, fair film about the Israel-Palestine conflict. You successfully get access to senior people on both sides. Except Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and to get that access you've visited online forums about the organisation, contacted people in the US associated with it, and flown to a terrorism hotspot to meet with terrorist leaders. That pattern is pretty similar to someone who had been radicalised and wanted to fight abroad! So you're put on a terror watch list, and at the border you're subject to extra searches, with the random delays that entails.
      - 8y ago
  - dgellow 8y ago
    My comment was specifically about hate speech. I never argued that absolute freedom of speech was a thing or that anyone can say anything.
  - swebs 8y ago
    >There are still limits in the US This is true, but your examples are pretty bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Exclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
- kro39nxkdk 8y ago
  Yeah but it hasn’t over turned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois As usual, it depends on how you measure It’s a hodge podge in the US This all says nothing about the tacit control given to corps to control the work we undertake, thus controlling conversations we are allowed 40+ hours of week (the bulk of our waking life). Or how Citizens United is enabling purchasing and pushing speech of a certain kind which we can see modifies people. “Who controls the past controls the future.” “The best books tell you what you know already.” “War is peace.” American is living those quotes and has been for decades.
  - pm24601 8y ago
    I don't get why this was killed.
PinkMilkshake 8y ago
I think what your parent meant was Australia doesn't have any explicit freedom of speech protection laws, unlike the US and some other countries. Which is true. "The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals." - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-a...
- omeid2 8y ago
  I understand, my point is that freedom of speech is complicated and not so black and white.
  - chii 8y ago
    Yep. A lot of people assume freedom of speech means they are allowed to say anything they want in a public forum, and nobody are allowed to stop them. But in actuality, freedom of speech means you are free from being censored by the gov't, but only the gov't. A private forum (such as a site, or newspaper) can freely censor anyone's speech if they choose to use their forum/platform/print.
bryanrasmussen 8y ago
do defamation laws forbid you from defaming someone, and force the removal of all defamatory material from the public record? Or do they fine you if you defame them and enjoin you to publically state you were wrong?
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth. You can't be criminally prosecuted for hate speech (unless the prosecutor stretches other laws to cover your "hate speech") or most instances of defamation (except in certain cases on a state by state basis[1]). You can be sued but that's a civil matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation...

by omeid2 8y ago

dgellow 8y ago

> There is also laws around hate speech and so forth. Not in the US (as far as I understand). See the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... > In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes: > “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).”

confounded 8y ago
There are still limits in the US. You have to promise that you’ve never been a member of a communist party on entry. It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated. Absolute freedom of speech doesn’t really exist anywhere. The US is probably one of the most liberal countries on earth when it comes to policing it, but it’s not like anyone can say anything.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated. Since when? How would that even work? The president orders the NSA to generate a list of disagreeable film makers and journalists and passes it to the TSA and customs? Do you have any evidence for that claim at all? > It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. Those are not free speech issues. It is not illegal to talk about bombs at an airport or to threaten the president. Just because you shouldn't does mean you're not free - freedom from consequences isn't the same as freedom of action. Restricted speech is exceedingly rare and, to my knowledge, only applies to public safety (falsely yelling fire in a theatre) and inciting violence (rallying everyone to get weapons and go shoot cops)
  - santaragolabs 8y ago
    No-one said anything about the president or the NSA being involved. There are tons of ways this can work. And it actually happens. Just once you're flagged and are inside The Machine you get detained upon entry whilst they confiscate your devices, try to see where you've been etc. Lookup the wikipedia page of Laura Poitras who for years lived in Berlin due to USA government surveillance. And this started way before her involvement with Snowden as a filmmaker.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    How would that even work? This works through a mechanism called a "terror watch list" For example, imagine you're a Youtuber and you make a serious, fair film about the Israel-Palestine conflict. You successfully get access to senior people on both sides. Except Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and to get that access you've visited online forums about the organisation, contacted people in the US associated with it, and flown to a terrorism hotspot to meet with terrorist leaders. That pattern is pretty similar to someone who had been radicalised and wanted to fight abroad! So you're put on a terror watch list, and at the border you're subject to extra searches, with the random delays that entails.
    - 8y ago
- dgellow 8y ago
  My comment was specifically about hate speech. I never argued that absolute freedom of speech was a thing or that anyone can say anything.
- swebs 8y ago
  >There are still limits in the US This is true, but your examples are pretty bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Exclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
kro39nxkdk 8y ago
Yeah but it hasn’t over turned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois As usual, it depends on how you measure It’s a hodge podge in the US This all says nothing about the tacit control given to corps to control the work we undertake, thus controlling conversations we are allowed 40+ hours of week (the bulk of our waking life). Or how Citizens United is enabling purchasing and pushing speech of a certain kind which we can see modifies people. “Who controls the past controls the future.” “The best books tell you what you know already.” “War is peace.” American is living those quotes and has been for decades.
- pm24601 8y ago
  I don't get why this was killed.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago

I think what your parent meant was Australia doesn't have any explicit freedom of speech protection laws, unlike the US and some other countries. Which is true. "The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals." - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-a...

omeid2 8y ago
I understand, my point is that freedom of speech is complicated and not so black and white.
- chii 8y ago
  Yep. A lot of people assume freedom of speech means they are allowed to say anything they want in a public forum, and nobody are allowed to stop them. But in actuality, freedom of speech means you are free from being censored by the gov't, but only the gov't. A private forum (such as a site, or newspaper) can freely censor anyone's speech if they choose to use their forum/platform/print.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago

do defamation laws forbid you from defaming someone, and force the removal of all defamatory material from the public record? Or do they fine you if you defame them and enjoin you to publically state you were wrong?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth. You can't be criminally prosecuted for hate speech (unless the prosecutor stretches other laws to cover your "hate speech") or most instances of defamation (except in certain cases on a state by state basis[1]). You can be sued but that's a civil matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation...