6 ms·

How can you take that seriously? It has UK above US.

alehul 8y ago
The above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0] I'd note the caveat that "aggressive" speech is included, but it also is simply meant to cover offensive speech. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on whether section 127 is used for actual crime-inciting speech, or whether it's handled under a separate law. Edit: And this is being silently downvoted, too... [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
- jon-wood 8y ago
  Subsection 4 is probably most relevant to this discussion, which I believe is effectively a press exemption: “Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service”
  - alehul 8y ago
    So there are freedoms of speech that are limited to the press? A collection of individuals in a corporation has more rights to speech than an individual alone? Thank you for making that distinction, and based on the interpretation of "a programme service" you may well be correct. I wonder whether this brings up a separate issue, as the post I responded to was rather rightly questioning how you can have limited rights to free speech and supposedly have a free press. If that is indeed a compatible notion, it seems worrying in a different way.
emj 8y ago
You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  That they can't decide what you "need" is the point of free speech.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes. This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong. People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate. Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them. There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
      - asveikau 8y ago
        The slavery example doesn't resonate with me. I am not sure what you are trying to say. But in everything else I would say you seem a little too attached to yourself as a decider. You are a stand-in for literally any other person. Hence everyone else shares the same rights. The whole thing is a legal approximation of fairness. But we get mixed up and call it our identity. The goal shouldn't necessarily be to be the best individual You are because of how awesome that is to be You. We are a society. A fair society functions well valuing individual rights because it works out in the aggregate. But I am going too far in a tangent. Enjoy your day.
zknz 8y ago
Press freedom index methodology: The report is partly based on a questionnaire[3] which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. --Presumably the evaluation 'downvotes' the independence and self-censorship of US media?

The above comment is being downvoted, but the UK actually arrests people for offensive speech. 625 arrests in 2010, for instance. [0] I'd note the caveat that "aggressive" speech is included, but it also is simply meant to cover offensive speech. Maybe someone from the UK can chime in on whether section 127 is used for actual crime-inciting speech, or whether it's handled under a separate law. Edit: And this is being silently downvoted, too... [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

jon-wood 8y ago
Subsection 4 is probably most relevant to this discussion, which I believe is effectively a press exemption: “Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service”
- alehul 8y ago
  So there are freedoms of speech that are limited to the press? A collection of individuals in a corporation has more rights to speech than an individual alone? Thank you for making that distinction, and based on the interpretation of "a programme service" you may well be correct. I wonder whether this brings up a separate issue, as the post I responded to was rather rightly questioning how you can have limited rights to free speech and supposedly have a free press. If that is indeed a compatible notion, it seems worrying in a different way.

emj 8y ago

You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.

Nasrudith 8y ago
That they can't decide what you "need" is the point of free speech.
- asveikau 8y ago
  I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes. This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong. People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate. Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them. There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      The slavery example doesn't resonate with me. I am not sure what you are trying to say. But in everything else I would say you seem a little too attached to yourself as a decider. You are a stand-in for literally any other person. Hence everyone else shares the same rights. The whole thing is a legal approximation of fairness. But we get mixed up and call it our identity. The goal shouldn't necessarily be to be the best individual You are because of how awesome that is to be You. We are a society. A fair society functions well valuing individual rights because it works out in the aggregate. But I am going too far in a tangent. Enjoy your day.

zknz 8y ago

Press freedom index methodology: The report is partly based on a questionnaire[3] which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure. The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public media. --Presumably the evaluation 'downvotes' the independence and self-censorship of US media?