3 ms·

> there are many things that an American could say that would see them brought before the courts. Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of

by smsm42 8y ago

> there are many things that an American could say that would see them brought before the courts. Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of actual harm to a person) or speech connected to specific lawless action (like saying "let's whack this guy" to a contract killer) - no, there's not. Which things do you mean? > Germans in particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing incitement to go unchallenged Germans problem was not just "incitement". It was putting Hitler in charge of the government. That wasn't done by "incitement", that was done by actual German top politicians, who thought that putting a strong leader in charge and suppressing opposition (Ermächtigungsgesetz and so on) will solve their stability problems. They did it for security, to keep the tranquility and peace in the nation, so they had the troublemakers arrested and the people who can right the course of the nation assigned the power instead. Too bad those people turned out to be the Nazis. I think the lesson from here is that no opposition voice needs to be suppressed, no group should be excluded, and nobody should be given absolute power over others. Somehow some people in EU think that the lesson if that right people just need to suppress the right things instead. After all, we have so good record in choosing who are the right people and what things they should be suppressing, don't we? We won't make any mistakes again there?

jdietrich 8y ago
>Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of actual harm to a person) or speech connected to specific lawless action (like saying "let's whack this guy" to a contract killer) - no, there's not. Which things do you mean? It's quite a long list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  That's not a very long list. Several of them fall into his original categories. Incitement, fighting words and child pornography into the second, false statements into the first. (Or more like the first falls into false statements, but libel really is a central example of false statements not being protected.) The big one he missed was obscenity, but that's somewhat understandable given the frequency with which "obscenity laws" get struck down rather than upheld. And the others aren't categories of speech. You can't use someone else's copyrighted work, but you can convey the exact same information in your own words. Government employees et al can't say certain things, but anyone else can say the same things.
- smsm42 8y ago
  No, it's not a long list - most of it either specific examples of lawless acts connected to speech, or matters unrelated to freedom of speech - such as that lying to a government official is a crime. It's true, but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech - the crime here is not the words being spoken but government official being deceived. Then goes discussion of IP rights - which also not violation of freedom of speech, because again the problem here not the speech itself but that the block of information conveyed by it is owned by somebody else. Concept of ownership of blocks of information may seem weird, but that question is very different from freedom of speech. Only limitations on obscenity somehow approach free speech restrictions, but even then they are "place and manner" restrictions, not outright bans - as you might be perfectly aware, there's a lot of porn of most obscene varieties around, and it's completely legal - as long as it is not presented in specific venues in specific manner. All these things are radically different from what EU is trying to do. They try to ban certain things completely, based on their content - not ban publication of X because it's copyrighted, or because they want to only be transmitted by cable TV and not public broadcast, or not shown in public places where kids may see it, or not being told to government officials if this can interfere with their functions. No. They want it to be banned because of its content, totally and absolutely. There's no connection to any other crime required, there's no other harm or action required - the speech content itself is a crime. That's the fundamental difference.

by smsm42 8y ago

jdietrich 8y ago

>Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of actual harm to a person) or speech connected to specific lawless action (like saying "let's whack this guy" to a contract killer) - no, there's not. Which things do you mean? It's quite a long list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
That's not a very long list. Several of them fall into his original categories. Incitement, fighting words and child pornography into the second, false statements into the first. (Or more like the first falls into false statements, but libel really is a central example of false statements not being protected.) The big one he missed was obscenity, but that's somewhat understandable given the frequency with which "obscenity laws" get struck down rather than upheld. And the others aren't categories of speech. You can't use someone else's copyrighted work, but you can convey the exact same information in your own words. Government employees et al can't say certain things, but anyone else can say the same things.
smsm42 8y ago
No, it's not a long list - most of it either specific examples of lawless acts connected to speech, or matters unrelated to freedom of speech - such as that lying to a government official is a crime. It's true, but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech - the crime here is not the words being spoken but government official being deceived. Then goes discussion of IP rights - which also not violation of freedom of speech, because again the problem here not the speech itself but that the block of information conveyed by it is owned by somebody else. Concept of ownership of blocks of information may seem weird, but that question is very different from freedom of speech. Only limitations on obscenity somehow approach free speech restrictions, but even then they are "place and manner" restrictions, not outright bans - as you might be perfectly aware, there's a lot of porn of most obscene varieties around, and it's completely legal - as long as it is not presented in specific venues in specific manner. All these things are radically different from what EU is trying to do. They try to ban certain things completely, based on their content - not ban publication of X because it's copyrighted, or because they want to only be transmitted by cable TV and not public broadcast, or not shown in public places where kids may see it, or not being told to government officials if this can interfere with their functions. No. They want it to be banned because of its content, totally and absolutely. There's no connection to any other crime required, there's no other harm or action required - the speech content itself is a crime. That's the fundamental difference.