4 ms·

And where would you propose as an alternative, in terms of better rights to free speech than europe? Surely not the US? Right?

throwaway8879 8y ago
As a non-US and non-EU person, I can confidently say that the US has better free speech laws than anywhere else on this planet. I am open to being educated on this though.
- chmod775 8y ago
  The US only ranks 45th place on the Freedom of Press Index for instance, so it appears there are actually quite a few things not even the press is allowed to write about, much less your ordinary person. https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking
  - cbnotfromthere 8y ago
    You seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom of press.
    - chmod775 8y ago
      Generally freedom of press is greater in areas where it matters. When the press can't speak about a thing, oftentimes your ordinary person can't either. Treating freedom of speech as completely disjoint from freedom of press is wrong.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    That is quite irrelevant. We're talking about freedom of speech here. Not the freedom of the press. When I think of freedom of speech, I have a simple question. If I say something that one finds offensive, am I committing a crime and will be prosecuted for my words? That's the only criteria I have. Now, the consequences that come from saying what you want, for eg. losing a job, or business - those have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Obviously there are exceptions, in the form of breaking contracts. Can't go around leaking classified information or industrial secrets - contracts you agreed to when you signed up for the gig.
    - chmod775 8y ago
      You can't even report on snowden revelations in the US without the government coming after you. I don't need to tell you to what lengths the US government went going after Snowden himself. If you can't even exercise free speech where it really matters in regards to your democracy, you hardly have total freedom of speech. Also Snowden is hardly the only example of whistleblowers from within a branch of a democratic government speaking out. However the US is an extreme outlier in how it handled the matter. Another thing many western democracies manage to do without is an equivalent to the US's National Security Letters, which are also a form of the government policing speech where it might matter. So apparently you have to be afraid to speak out when it really matters, but at least you can deny the holocaust I guess.
- jnurmine 8y ago
  All places have some limits on free speech. EU places some exceptions, just like USA does, on the freedom of speech. In the USA things like defamation, incitement to riot or lawless action, speech covered by copyright, terrorist threats etc. may land you in big trouble. In the EU same thing for for example holocaust denial. And in other places, such as for example Russia, the constitution might grant you the freedom of speech, but the system enforcing the constitution does not. It is difficult to compare countries directly because of different laws and legislative systems. The use of some form of proxy metrics like the Freedom of Press Index might be useful, but then the question becomes which metrics should be used, and when presented with several metrics, there is a danger to select only those metrics which enforce existing viewpoints.

throwaway8879 8y ago

As a non-US and non-EU person, I can confidently say that the US has better free speech laws than anywhere else on this planet. I am open to being educated on this though.

chmod775 8y ago
The US only ranks 45th place on the Freedom of Press Index for instance, so it appears there are actually quite a few things not even the press is allowed to write about, much less your ordinary person. https://rsf.org/en/ranking https://rsf.org/en/ranking
- cbnotfromthere 8y ago
  You seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom of press.
  - chmod775 8y ago
    Generally freedom of press is greater in areas where it matters. When the press can't speak about a thing, oftentimes your ordinary person can't either. Treating freedom of speech as completely disjoint from freedom of press is wrong.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  That is quite irrelevant. We're talking about freedom of speech here. Not the freedom of the press. When I think of freedom of speech, I have a simple question. If I say something that one finds offensive, am I committing a crime and will be prosecuted for my words? That's the only criteria I have. Now, the consequences that come from saying what you want, for eg. losing a job, or business - those have nothing to do with freedom of speech. Obviously there are exceptions, in the form of breaking contracts. Can't go around leaking classified information or industrial secrets - contracts you agreed to when you signed up for the gig.
  - chmod775 8y ago
    You can't even report on snowden revelations in the US without the government coming after you. I don't need to tell you to what lengths the US government went going after Snowden himself. If you can't even exercise free speech where it really matters in regards to your democracy, you hardly have total freedom of speech. Also Snowden is hardly the only example of whistleblowers from within a branch of a democratic government speaking out. However the US is an extreme outlier in how it handled the matter. Another thing many western democracies manage to do without is an equivalent to the US's National Security Letters, which are also a form of the government policing speech where it might matter. So apparently you have to be afraid to speak out when it really matters, but at least you can deny the holocaust I guess.
jnurmine 8y ago
All places have some limits on free speech. EU places some exceptions, just like USA does, on the freedom of speech. In the USA things like defamation, incitement to riot or lawless action, speech covered by copyright, terrorist threats etc. may land you in big trouble. In the EU same thing for for example holocaust denial. And in other places, such as for example Russia, the constitution might grant you the freedom of speech, but the system enforcing the constitution does not. It is difficult to compare countries directly because of different laws and legislative systems. The use of some form of proxy metrics like the Freedom of Press Index might be useful, but then the question becomes which metrics should be used, and when presented with several metrics, there is a danger to select only those metrics which enforce existing viewpoints.