5 ms·

The US would be a laggard here regardless, given its enshrinement of free speech

floki999 7y ago
Perhaps. Unfortunately absolute enshrinement of anything and the inability to critically evaluate when to allow for common-sense deviation from such enshrinement is a bit of a progress-stopper.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  That's the point of inalienable rights. You cant "progress" them away.
- ameister14 7y ago
  The problem with common-sense as a guide for law is that it changes dramatically over time, and often over short periods. It also remains to be seen whether or not this will result in progress in the long term. It's fortunate that we've been in one of the longest periods of relative peace in post dark age Western European history, but I don't generally count on that trend continuing forever. Making sure a government has significant enshrined limitations on its own power is important, not in the good times, but in the bad.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  > common-sense deviation Common-sense deviations, a.k.a. an exceptions to the rules are often ill-conceived acts of emotional stupidity that don't age well. If it was so obvious, why wasn't it part of the rule in the first place?
  - floki999 7y ago
    Same argument applies to those rules or enshrined values. Times change.
phil248 7y ago
The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. The Netherlands has, in practice, some of the most expansive free speech rights of any corner of the planet, yet they had no problem signing on (to this non-binding agreement).
- hugh4life 7y ago
  "The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence." What laws are you talking about?
  - phil248 7y ago
    An example is the law against distributing information on making bombs/weapons with the intent of promoting/enabling violence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      Bomb making instructions are generally protected speech. Distributing such instructions with the intent to further a crime makes the speech unprotected. But, each element (e.g, knowingly intending to further a crime, and so on) has to be proven in a court of law to strip the speech of its protected status. From the statute you linked: "...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;" edit: typos
    - Reelin 7y ago
      In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it. US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2) (A) > to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction > ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence (B) > knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim. > The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.

Perhaps. Unfortunately absolute enshrinement of anything and the inability to critically evaluate when to allow for common-sense deviation from such enshrinement is a bit of a progress-stopper.

jakeogh 7y ago
That's the point of inalienable rights. You cant "progress" them away.
ameister14 7y ago
The problem with common-sense as a guide for law is that it changes dramatically over time, and often over short periods. It also remains to be seen whether or not this will result in progress in the long term. It's fortunate that we've been in one of the longest periods of relative peace in post dark age Western European history, but I don't generally count on that trend continuing forever. Making sure a government has significant enshrined limitations on its own power is important, not in the good times, but in the bad.
pathseeker 7y ago
> common-sense deviation Common-sense deviations, a.k.a. an exceptions to the rules are often ill-conceived acts of emotional stupidity that don't age well. If it was so obvious, why wasn't it part of the rule in the first place?
- floki999 7y ago
  Same argument applies to those rules or enshrined values. Times change.

phil248 7y ago

The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. The Netherlands has, in practice, some of the most expansive free speech rights of any corner of the planet, yet they had no problem signing on (to this non-binding agreement).

hugh4life 7y ago
"The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence." What laws are you talking about?
- phil248 7y ago
  An example is the law against distributing information on making bombs/weapons with the intent of promoting/enabling violence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    Bomb making instructions are generally protected speech. Distributing such instructions with the intent to further a crime makes the speech unprotected. But, each element (e.g, knowingly intending to further a crime, and so on) has to be proven in a court of law to strip the speech of its protected status. From the statute you linked: "...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;" edit: typos
  - Reelin 7y ago
    In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it. US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2) (A) > to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction > ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence (B) > knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim. > The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.