3 ms·

The EU has never had freedom of expression, so these regulations are anything but surprising. They just extend what already existed to the digital era.

by dbmyh 8y ago

deugtniet 8y ago
Source? I am a EU citizen, My freedom of speech is only inhibited when I incite to violence or discriminate. That is because it is illegal to do, seems fair.
- dbmyh 8y ago
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre... (I would like an explanation to my GP's comment being flagged other than "I would like this to not be true")
  - deugtniet 8y ago
    She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that you link that. EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.
    - XCabbage 8y ago
      No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - cyphar 8y ago
      From the first line in the article: > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed. Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's title?
  - corney91 8y ago
    Regarding your original comment, I can't say with certainty but it was probably flagged because it's misleading. You stated that the EU doesn't have freedom of speech, but your link shows is specifically about Austria and how the ECHR isn't going to overrule it on this case. Pretty much every EU country has some form of free speech, and the ECHR sets a baseline on what's expected from member countries. It seems like Austrian law is running pretty close to that baseline but, as much as I'd personally prefer that case went the other way, supranational institutions need to draw a line between what they can and can't do.
- XCabbage 8y ago
  Saying that your freedom of speech is only inhibited when you want you say things that are illegal is almost a tautology. Based on your reasoning, it's also "fair" for gay rights activists in Uganda or critics of the king in Thailand to be punished. There are probably thoughtful defences possible of the speech restrictions that exist in EU states, but "suppressing speech is fair because the speech is illegal" isn't one of them.
  - deugtniet 8y ago
    I disagree. Acts that you do can be powerful and dangerous therefore your acts should be within the law. This includes your speech. If the law inhibits your free speech too much, you should target the law, and not free speech. If you can kill people with your comments, it should be against the law, no question. The tautology you mention, is only when you take the word free literally. The law defines how free you are. You are also not allowed to kill somebody in the freedom paradise of the US.
    - moduspol 8y ago
      > If you can kill people with your comments, it should be against the law, no question. You can't, though. You can call for violence, and that is already against the law. The conflation of words with violence is dangerous.
      - jonathanstrange 8y ago
        >You can call for violence, and that is already against the law. That's mostly what he was talking about, though. The differences between freedom of speech in the US and in the EU are minimal, mostly just the result of different legal traditions and the US paying more superficial lip service to freedom of speech. Put up some ISIS propaganda on the web and in your front yard, though, and you'll be arrested in the US very quickly. Do the same with classical 3rd Reich Nazi propaganda, and they'll be more lenient in the US. Speech is prohibited in most EU countries mostly for direct, intentional, and credible calls for violence, especially if they actually result in actual violence. In more restrictive countries like Germany, direct calls for acting against the constitution as well as overt intentional discrimination against whole groups of people are also restricted but generally dealt with in a more lenient way. The hurdles are high, except for the clear-cut cases like showing Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial, because in these cases the judge doesn't have to deliberate a lot about the intentions of the delinquents and whether they support the German constitution or not. It's much harder to prosecute less clear cases. (But e.g. symbols of certain rocker gangs and the gangs themselves have been successfully prohibited in the past.) >The conflation of words with violence is dangerous. That's a bit of a strawman. Of course, ordering and encouraging a crime can be punished, not just actually committing the crime, or else almost every mob and gang related crime boss would remain free forever. There is no significant difference in that respect between US and EU. I personally believe that membership in a group should never be reason for punishment, and there was an extensive debate about this in the 70s when Germany introduced such "guilty by association" laws in an attempt to fight terrorism by (mostly) the RAF.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

The EU has never had freedom of expression, so these regulations are anything but surprising. They just extend what already existed to the digital era.

by dbmyh 8y ago

The EU has never had freedom of expression, so these regulations are anything but surprising. They just extend what already existed to the digital era.

deugtniet 8y ago

Source? I am a EU citizen, My freedom of speech is only inhibited when I incite to violence or discriminate. That is because it is illegal to do, seems fair.

dbmyh 8y ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre... (I would like an explanation to my GP's comment being flagged other than "I would like this to not be true")
- deugtniet 8y ago
  She was not convicted after appeal right? She retained her right to free speech, and the Austrian courts should not convict somebody on these counts. Weird that you link that. EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.
  - XCabbage 8y ago
    No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - cyphar 8y ago
    From the first line in the article: > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed. Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's title?
- corney91 8y ago
  Regarding your original comment, I can't say with certainty but it was probably flagged because it's misleading. You stated that the EU doesn't have freedom of speech, but your link shows is specifically about Austria and how the ECHR isn't going to overrule it on this case. Pretty much every EU country has some form of free speech, and the ECHR sets a baseline on what's expected from member countries. It seems like Austrian law is running pretty close to that baseline but, as much as I'd personally prefer that case went the other way, supranational institutions need to draw a line between what they can and can't do.
XCabbage 8y ago
Saying that your freedom of speech is only inhibited when you want you say things that are illegal is almost a tautology. Based on your reasoning, it's also "fair" for gay rights activists in Uganda or critics of the king in Thailand to be punished. There are probably thoughtful defences possible of the speech restrictions that exist in EU states, but "suppressing speech is fair because the speech is illegal" isn't one of them.
- deugtniet 8y ago
  I disagree. Acts that you do can be powerful and dangerous therefore your acts should be within the law. This includes your speech. If the law inhibits your free speech too much, you should target the law, and not free speech. If you can kill people with your comments, it should be against the law, no question. The tautology you mention, is only when you take the word free literally. The law defines how free you are. You are also not allowed to kill somebody in the freedom paradise of the US.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    > If you can kill people with your comments, it should be against the law, no question. You can't, though. You can call for violence, and that is already against the law. The conflation of words with violence is dangerous.
    - jonathanstrange 8y ago
      >You can call for violence, and that is already against the law. That's mostly what he was talking about, though. The differences between freedom of speech in the US and in the EU are minimal, mostly just the result of different legal traditions and the US paying more superficial lip service to freedom of speech. Put up some ISIS propaganda on the web and in your front yard, though, and you'll be arrested in the US very quickly. Do the same with classical 3rd Reich Nazi propaganda, and they'll be more lenient in the US. Speech is prohibited in most EU countries mostly for direct, intentional, and credible calls for violence, especially if they actually result in actual violence. In more restrictive countries like Germany, direct calls for acting against the constitution as well as overt intentional discrimination against whole groups of people are also restricted but generally dealt with in a more lenient way. The hurdles are high, except for the clear-cut cases like showing Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial, because in these cases the judge doesn't have to deliberate a lot about the intentions of the delinquents and whether they support the German constitution or not. It's much harder to prosecute less clear cases. (But e.g. symbols of certain rocker gangs and the gangs themselves have been successfully prohibited in the past.) >The conflation of words with violence is dangerous. That's a bit of a strawman. Of course, ordering and encouraging a crime can be punished, not just actually committing the crime, or else almost every mob and gang related crime boss would remain free forever. There is no significant difference in that respect between US and EU. I personally believe that membership in a group should never be reason for punishment, and there was an extensive debate about this in the 70s when Germany introduced such "guilty by association" laws in an attempt to fight terrorism by (mostly) the RAF.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]