4 ms·

I would argue the US draws the line in a clearly categorical way, while European countries draw it past a categorical boundary. In the US, what you say has to b

I would argue the US draws the line in a clearly categorical way, while European countries draw it past a categorical boundary. In the US, what you say has to break an already existing criminal law or be pursuant to a criminal act for it to be criminal. For example, lying to someone about your company's financial situation is fraud, telling someone you're going to injure them is threat of battery, and falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal because it may lead to imminent lawless action, such as a riot or stampede which could injure people. European countries ban those forms of speech, and also ban other forms of speech based on subjective non-criminal harm that is perceived to be a potential result of such speech. For example, denying the Holocaust could lead other people to think it didn't happen, which may cause them to view Jewish people more negatively. The US simply doesn't engage in that kind of subjective interpretation of speech. Speech has to be a component of a criminal act, or a clear precursor to an imminently criminal act. You can't play association games like "he said this, which could lead other people to think X, which could lead people to say Y, which could lead to some form of violence", which most (all?) European legal systems seem to do. I do understand the need for certain limited restrictions on speech in times of war and martial law, and perhaps for brief periods after wars end, but the EU hasn't had a major war in a long time. I get banning swastikas and banning Holocaust denial in the 50s. But I'm an American Jew, and I've been to Germany a bunch in the past decade. I don't care (in a legal sense) if someone denies the Holocaust, and in fact think that banning Holocaust denial greatly empowers them and their cause, not just in Germany but globally. I've seen this firsthand, many times.

fzeroracer 8y ago
I have to disagree. A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. A black man mouthing off to a police officer for example would be very likely putting himself in a dangerous situation and anything the officer does would end up 'justified' in the court of law. Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident [1] The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America. It's a nice platitude, but 'freedom of speech' has always been used as a tool and weapon for those in power to suppress minorities or to bolster their own voices. All you have to do is tie it to some other bogus law or rationale, and you get freedom of speech for me but not for thee. [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_n_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressi...
- meowface 8y ago
  I do fully agree and understand that freedom of speech by statute is not the same as freedom of speech in practice. But you at least have to start at the level of the laws. If your laws don't provide for freedom of speech, you're certainly not going to get it in practice. A legal framework for freedom of speech is not a sufficient condition for achieving it, but it is a necessary one. And the issues you mention happen in European countries, too, just with much lower risk of being shot, and usually with different minority groups (though I'm sure black people face problems with police in European countries as well). And the Congress laughing incident is certainly ridiculous - but you'll also find many similarly ridiculous stories in Britain, for example. Don't get me wrong; I have many problems with the US, and think most European countries do a lot of things better than we do. I just think the freedom of speech laws are one thing we usually do better than they do. In the US, you aren't going to be arrested for a tweet (unless that tweet threatens violence), regardless of your ethnicity or sexuality. This is something that does actually sometimes happen in other countries. No, that's not necessarily a huge win when you consider real, everyday situations like black men having to be far more cautious with police than other people, often risking their lives, but I think you kind of just have to tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise. We should appreciate where our system works well and vehemently dissent where it fails. The issues you mention are major and do definitely need to be dealt with to achieve a state of real freedom for everyone in the US. But I also think those problems aren't insurmountable, and that practical freedom of speech is an eventually attainable goal. I also think we're slowly getting better over time, even though the problems remain immense. A lot of people in the US are dedicating their lives to ensuring laws and standards are applied fairly.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    It's easy to say we should just 'tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise' if you're not the person getting shot when you express your rights to freedom of speech. You're right in that you can express yourself online, but I think that's bit of a rather sad point when minorities have to censure themselves in order to not enflame the powers that be. And even that's not particularly true either, considering how the US has placed an uneven focus on Black Identity Extremists over the group actually causing real and daily harm to individuals. Which goes back to my point of freedom of speech not really existing in the US: It's more acceptable to be a white supremacist (and in turn, your rights to 'freedom of speech' strongly defended) and express extremely violent views under the protection of the police and government. Which is why you see an increasingly strong reaction to any form of white supremacy.

fzeroracer 8y ago

I have to disagree. A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. A black man mouthing off to a police officer for example would be very likely putting himself in a dangerous situation and anything the officer does would end up 'justified' in the court of law. Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident [1] The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America. It's a nice platitude, but 'freedom of speech' has always been used as a tool and weapon for those in power to suppress minorities or to bolster their own voices. All you have to do is tie it to some other bogus law or rationale, and you get freedom of speech for me but not for thee. [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_n_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressi...

meowface 8y ago
I do fully agree and understand that freedom of speech by statute is not the same as freedom of speech in practice. But you at least have to start at the level of the laws. If your laws don't provide for freedom of speech, you're certainly not going to get it in practice. A legal framework for freedom of speech is not a sufficient condition for achieving it, but it is a necessary one. And the issues you mention happen in European countries, too, just with much lower risk of being shot, and usually with different minority groups (though I'm sure black people face problems with police in European countries as well). And the Congress laughing incident is certainly ridiculous - but you'll also find many similarly ridiculous stories in Britain, for example. Don't get me wrong; I have many problems with the US, and think most European countries do a lot of things better than we do. I just think the freedom of speech laws are one thing we usually do better than they do. In the US, you aren't going to be arrested for a tweet (unless that tweet threatens violence), regardless of your ethnicity or sexuality. This is something that does actually sometimes happen in other countries. No, that's not necessarily a huge win when you consider real, everyday situations like black men having to be far more cautious with police than other people, often risking their lives, but I think you kind of just have to tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise. We should appreciate where our system works well and vehemently dissent where it fails. The issues you mention are major and do definitely need to be dealt with to achieve a state of real freedom for everyone in the US. But I also think those problems aren't insurmountable, and that practical freedom of speech is an eventually attainable goal. I also think we're slowly getting better over time, even though the problems remain immense. A lot of people in the US are dedicating their lives to ensuring laws and standards are applied fairly.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  It's easy to say we should just 'tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise' if you're not the person getting shot when you express your rights to freedom of speech. You're right in that you can express yourself online, but I think that's bit of a rather sad point when minorities have to censure themselves in order to not enflame the powers that be. And even that's not particularly true either, considering how the US has placed an uneven focus on Black Identity Extremists over the group actually causing real and daily harm to individuals. Which goes back to my point of freedom of speech not really existing in the US: It's more acceptable to be a white supremacist (and in turn, your rights to 'freedom of speech' strongly defended) and express extremely violent views under the protection of the police and government. Which is why you see an increasingly strong reaction to any form of white supremacy.