4 ms·

> Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult Actually it does. Even hate speech is free speech in the US. > or spread unlawful things online That's not a

> Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult Actually it does. Even hate speech is free speech in the US. > or spread unlawful things online That's not a free speech violation then. The video in question is not classified, doesn't break any laws, it just depicts a horrible act. Should we make all war documentaries illegal too? > Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised So you just contradicted your first point. If I, for example, say "you're an idiot", it's an opinion, it's protected speech (in the US at least). AU doesn't have free speech except political speech, and has been making some Orwellian moves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#A... NZ has the Bill of Rights of 1990 that states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." So it seems that any censorship would directly contradict that.

hestefisk 8y ago
Good point. I agree with you.
bitwize 8y ago
Most countries with a bill of rights, including Canada and presumably NZ, have a "notwithstanding clause" that allows the government broad power to abrogate those rights if it feels it is in the public interest to do so. The USA is the sole major exception.
kdtsh 8y ago
You can have your views about what constitutes free speech, but the fact that US constitution is interpreted as considering hate speech to be free speech is irrelevant to your response to OP, as NZ is not under the jurisdiction of the US. The video does break NZ laws, and the steps that have been taken to prevent its dissemination follow from that. Also, war documentaries generally contain footage of conflicts which have a basis in law, while disseminating ISIS beheadings may be illegal (but IANAL). As others have pointed out, most countries allow for exceptions to free speech in cases constituting hate speech - the fact that the US does not is a neutral fact, and an appeal to free speech absolutism doesn’t really constitute an argument for why other countries should uphold the same standards of free speech. On Australia: we have a different political system here to the US, which is similar to NZ. While our governments are different to the UK in that parliament has enumerated powers, we don’t require fundamental rights to be explicitly defined in the constitution. The provision for freedom of political speech for instance was built up when it became apparent that the way in which we want our society to operate requires such an interpretation of our constitution. On the other hand, the US system requires a constitutional amendment for issues relating to constitutional law and fundamental rights outlined in the constitution. Both systems have their merits and demerits, but the fact that ours doesn’t work in the way that the US’s does isn’t an argument against it.

hestefisk 8y ago

Good point. I agree with you.

bitwize 8y ago

Most countries with a bill of rights, including Canada and presumably NZ, have a "notwithstanding clause" that allows the government broad power to abrogate those rights if it feels it is in the public interest to do so. The USA is the sole major exception.

kdtsh 8y ago

You can have your views about what constitutes free speech, but the fact that US constitution is interpreted as considering hate speech to be free speech is irrelevant to your response to OP, as NZ is not under the jurisdiction of the US. The video does break NZ laws, and the steps that have been taken to prevent its dissemination follow from that. Also, war documentaries generally contain footage of conflicts which have a basis in law, while disseminating ISIS beheadings may be illegal (but IANAL). As others have pointed out, most countries allow for exceptions to free speech in cases constituting hate speech - the fact that the US does not is a neutral fact, and an appeal to free speech absolutism doesn’t really constitute an argument for why other countries should uphold the same standards of free speech. On Australia: we have a different political system here to the US, which is similar to NZ. While our governments are different to the UK in that parliament has enumerated powers, we don’t require fundamental rights to be explicitly defined in the constitution. The provision for freedom of political speech for instance was built up when it became apparent that the way in which we want our society to operate requires such an interpretation of our constitution. On the other hand, the US system requires a constitutional amendment for issues relating to constitutional law and fundamental rights outlined in the constitution. Both systems have their merits and demerits, but the fact that ours doesn’t work in the way that the US’s does isn’t an argument against it.