4 ms·

> Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more It is absolutely not. That's a preposterous assumption. If it was the case then

by aikah 8y ago

> Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more It is absolutely not. That's a preposterous assumption. If it was the case then no European state could send people to prison or fine them for having an opinion, yet look at France, where insulting the president is a crime and denying "official" history has landed people in jail (I don't condone either of these, it's just about principle). There is absolutely no equivalent to the US first amendment anywhere else on the planet.

tripzilch 8y ago
The US has the "glorious" principle of explicitly allowing people to heckle a gay soldier's funeral. That was a while ago, but it just goes to show that the US 1st amendment leads to equally preposterous scenarios. > I don't condone either of these, it's just about principle But being respectful to people at funerals is also a principle. By which I mean "it's about principle" is not at all a clear signal on whether something should be allowed even when not condoned. Personally, over the years I've taken an interest in this, I've seen the US's extreme stance on freedom of speech hurt more often than I've seen the EU's more relaxed stance on freedom of speech hurt. But even then I suppose you could argue the principle of the thing, that the one time our "loose" freedom of speech does hurt in the EU, it's going to hurt disproportionally more. Except I'd argue against that, it's a risk that is always there and it's not strictly controlled by strict freedom of speech, that's just one symptom of things going south.
craigsmansion 8y ago
It absolutely is, depending on your p.o.v. I know the U.S. is big on their "freedom of speech" since it's one of the few things all citizens agree on, an All American Shibboleth, so to speak, but National Security trumps everything. There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for their speech. We don't know because the proceedings are secret. Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places. That's about treason, you might say, but with enough restrictions any speech can be classified as treason. Speech in the U.S. only seems to be free when it doesn't matter. If it matters there are a lot of restrictions and there can be dire consequences.
- onli 8y ago
  As a rule of law or constitutional principle freedom of speech in the US just is a lot more protected than it is in the EU countries I am familiar with. The limits of freedom of speech are a lot bigger in EU countries than in the US-limits mentioned. > There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. That's a really bad example. If you get send home you are not an US citizen and you might not have the rights US citizens enjoy, which is what they are talking about when freedom of speech is referenced. > Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places Snowden leaked secrets. The USA is very bad in protecting that, right. But it's not a simple question of freedom of speech, it has a a lot more with how authoritarian the government is. It's not surprising that a war mongering USA that tries to achieve complete surveillance, tortures prisoners and and kidnaps citizens of other and allied countries to put them without trial for forever into the hellhole that is Guantanamo might have a limit on what dissident actions it accepts. But that does not mean that the protection of freedom of speech in a general area is stronger than elsewhere.
- adventured 8y ago
  > If it matters there are a lot of restrictions and there can be dire consequences. That's blatantly incorrect. Name a bunch of examples of that please. It's the very rare exception that you can't publish something in the US. You mention Snowden: he was able to publish the documents in the US. Numerous US media outlets published documents from the Snowden cache. It got non-stop coverage for most of that year in the US as the reveals rolled on. That the media can publish such doesn't mean the action of stealing classified documents from the government should be legal, that would be absurd. The US Government is almost entirely powerless to prevent very embarrassing things from coming out, such as Abu Ghraib as one dramatic example. If they could do what you're claiming they can, they would have shut all of that down immediately and it would have never been published across basically all media in the US for a year. Nixon, watergate and the pentagon papers is another obvious example where the substantial US protections for the press won out. COINTELPRO and the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI is another example. The US media was able to publish the stolen documents. We're got a President that is at 'war' with the press on a daily basis. They hate him, he hates them. He's almost entirely powerless to do anything about them. It's clear that Trump would heavily restrict the media if he could, what greater proof could one possibly need of just how potent the protections for speech / press / expression are? Trump's administration has been leaking like crazy since day one, and the media has been publishing those leaks at will. The government can't do anything about it. They have no power to stop the Washington Post or NY Times from publishing such leaks. The US is the only country on earth that can support a Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Wordpress or Hacker News, precisely because we're free to say all sorts of disagreeable or hateful things on most of those platforms. And if not, I can always build my own new site or platform. Even the most liberal speech supporting nations in Europe don't allow what the US does when it comes to speech areas that involve things such as religion, government and politics. I can insult the police in the US on HN, and I won't be arrested for it. That isn't true in the UK as one example. They put people in jail for insulting the police on social media there. I can insult the US President in any number of various ways across countless US platforms. Snoop Dogg killed him in a music video; they made his wife a stripper in another music video. You can mock-up his chopped off head and put it on the cover of a magazine, you won't go to jail for that. There are very few countries that afford you such expression luxury, even when it's detestable expression (the most important kind to protect). Online in the US I can disagree with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, their followers, their practices, and so on, at will, in almost any manner I see fit. There are few countries where that remains true other than the US. Most of Europe now categories such as hate speech, or otherwise restricted speech, and will arrest you for it. The reason the US dominates online platforms, is precisely because the US is the sole country where they can thrive when it comes to aggressively enshrined freedom of speech & expression. You can't build a Reddit in Europe and will never be able to. With the draconian copyright laws the EU is passing, it's only going to get that much worse.
zanny 8y ago
Its not exactly the same but its a felony to threaten the president in the US. US freedom of speech is not close to absolute with all kinds of exceptions made over the years, from yelling fire in a theater to verbal harassment.
- driverdan 8y ago
  > from yelling fire in a theater I don't understand why so many people think this isn't protected. The courts ruled it was.
  - zanny 8y ago
    Because while you have a right to yell it, you will still be charged with disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
- mmebane 8y ago
  I highly recommend the podcast "Make No Law" [1] to help understand the US's 1st Amendment. There's a whole episode on yelling fire in a crowded theater. [1]: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/
justanother- 8y ago
Yes, in US you wont go to jail. But the companies will beat you down for beeing too laud with their lawyers. US first amandment is just smoke and mirrors. You are allowed to say anything on the other side, you don't dare to say anything as you might get sued. I have lived on both continents and once you look at political correctness/criticism/newspapers you will see that people in states are far less outspoken than in europe. At the end it comes down to the system and who it protects: in europe people - in states corporations. Anyway, for a proof, just check this thread on HN. People can have their opinions, as long they don't express them. Once they do, and are not in line with majority, they will be punished with -1. The moral of the story, in US there is a mentality where only people strongly over average can express their opinions (mentally, moneywise,..). Everyone can agree or is being beaten down by everyone.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by aikah 8y ago

tripzilch 8y ago

The US has the "glorious" principle of explicitly allowing people to heckle a gay soldier's funeral. That was a while ago, but it just goes to show that the US 1st amendment leads to equally preposterous scenarios. > I don't condone either of these, it's just about principle But being respectful to people at funerals is also a principle. By which I mean "it's about principle" is not at all a clear signal on whether something should be allowed even when not condoned. Personally, over the years I've taken an interest in this, I've seen the US's extreme stance on freedom of speech hurt more often than I've seen the EU's more relaxed stance on freedom of speech hurt. But even then I suppose you could argue the principle of the thing, that the one time our "loose" freedom of speech does hurt in the EU, it's going to hurt disproportionally more. Except I'd argue against that, it's a risk that is always there and it's not strictly controlled by strict freedom of speech, that's just one symptom of things going south.

craigsmansion 8y ago

It absolutely is, depending on your p.o.v. I know the U.S. is big on their "freedom of speech" since it's one of the few things all citizens agree on, an All American Shibboleth, so to speak, but National Security trumps everything. There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for their speech. We don't know because the proceedings are secret. Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places. That's about treason, you might say, but with enough restrictions any speech can be classified as treason. Speech in the U.S. only seems to be free when it doesn't matter. If it matters there are a lot of restrictions and there can be dire consequences.

onli 8y ago
As a rule of law or constitutional principle freedom of speech in the US just is a lot more protected than it is in the EU countries I am familiar with. The limits of freedom of speech are a lot bigger in EU countries than in the US-limits mentioned. > There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home. That's a really bad example. If you get send home you are not an US citizen and you might not have the rights US citizens enjoy, which is what they are talking about when freedom of speech is referenced. > Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places Snowden leaked secrets. The USA is very bad in protecting that, right. But it's not a simple question of freedom of speech, it has a a lot more with how authoritarian the government is. It's not surprising that a war mongering USA that tries to achieve complete surveillance, tortures prisoners and and kidnaps citizens of other and allied countries to put them without trial for forever into the hellhole that is Guantanamo might have a limit on what dissident actions it accepts. But that does not mean that the protection of freedom of speech in a general area is stronger than elsewhere.
adventured 8y ago
> If it matters there are a lot of restrictions and there can be dire consequences. That's blatantly incorrect. Name a bunch of examples of that please. It's the very rare exception that you can't publish something in the US. You mention Snowden: he was able to publish the documents in the US. Numerous US media outlets published documents from the Snowden cache. It got non-stop coverage for most of that year in the US as the reveals rolled on. That the media can publish such doesn't mean the action of stealing classified documents from the government should be legal, that would be absurd. The US Government is almost entirely powerless to prevent very embarrassing things from coming out, such as Abu Ghraib as one dramatic example. If they could do what you're claiming they can, they would have shut all of that down immediately and it would have never been published across basically all media in the US for a year. Nixon, watergate and the pentagon papers is another obvious example where the substantial US protections for the press won out. COINTELPRO and the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI is another example. The US media was able to publish the stolen documents. We're got a President that is at 'war' with the press on a daily basis. They hate him, he hates them. He's almost entirely powerless to do anything about them. It's clear that Trump would heavily restrict the media if he could, what greater proof could one possibly need of just how potent the protections for speech / press / expression are? Trump's administration has been leaking like crazy since day one, and the media has been publishing those leaks at will. The government can't do anything about it. They have no power to stop the Washington Post or NY Times from publishing such leaks. The US is the only country on earth that can support a Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Wordpress or Hacker News, precisely because we're free to say all sorts of disagreeable or hateful things on most of those platforms. And if not, I can always build my own new site or platform. Even the most liberal speech supporting nations in Europe don't allow what the US does when it comes to speech areas that involve things such as religion, government and politics. I can insult the police in the US on HN, and I won't be arrested for it. That isn't true in the UK as one example. They put people in jail for insulting the police on social media there. I can insult the US President in any number of various ways across countless US platforms. Snoop Dogg killed him in a music video; they made his wife a stripper in another music video. You can mock-up his chopped off head and put it on the cover of a magazine, you won't go to jail for that. There are very few countries that afford you such expression luxury, even when it's detestable expression (the most important kind to protect). Online in the US I can disagree with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, their followers, their practices, and so on, at will, in almost any manner I see fit. There are few countries where that remains true other than the US. Most of Europe now categories such as hate speech, or otherwise restricted speech, and will arrest you for it. The reason the US dominates online platforms, is precisely because the US is the sole country where they can thrive when it comes to aggressively enshrined freedom of speech & expression. You can't build a Reddit in Europe and will never be able to. With the draconian copyright laws the EU is passing, it's only going to get that much worse.

zanny 8y ago

Its not exactly the same but its a felony to threaten the president in the US. US freedom of speech is not close to absolute with all kinds of exceptions made over the years, from yelling fire in a theater to verbal harassment.

driverdan 8y ago
> from yelling fire in a theater I don't understand why so many people think this isn't protected. The courts ruled it was.
- zanny 8y ago
  Because while you have a right to yell it, you will still be charged with disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
mmebane 8y ago
I highly recommend the podcast "Make No Law" [1] to help understand the US's 1st Amendment. There's a whole episode on yelling fire in a crowded theater. [1]: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/

justanother- 8y ago

Yes, in US you wont go to jail. But the companies will beat you down for beeing too laud with their lawyers. US first amandment is just smoke and mirrors. You are allowed to say anything on the other side, you don't dare to say anything as you might get sued. I have lived on both continents and once you look at political correctness/criticism/newspapers you will see that people in states are far less outspoken than in europe. At the end it comes down to the system and who it protects: in europe people - in states corporations. Anyway, for a proof, just check this thread on HN. People can have their opinions, as long they don't express them. Once they do, and are not in line with majority, they will be punished with -1. The moral of the story, in US there is a mentality where only people strongly over average can express their opinions (mentally, moneywise,..). Everyone can agree or is being beaten down by everyone.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]