5 ms·

There is a clear (and working) distinction between free speech of type A and of type B in other countries. In Germany, just as an example, you are free to expre

There is a clear (and working) distinction between free speech of type A and of type B in other countries. In Germany, just as an example, you are free to express your OPINION (type A), but not to express false facts (type B). If you express false facts, knowingly, and those false facts have damaging effects you are fully liable for compensation. Simple example: if a person wrongly claims, that some local artisan's business is insolvent, and the artisan can prove that a potential customer withdrew an order for that reason, the person who spread the fake news has to pay for the artisan's loss. Entirely. Talking someone into commiting a crime is never treated as free speech, either. So, this is the legal construct in Germany: - you are free to have any opinion you like ("Meinungsfreiheit") and - you are free to express those opinions to the public ("Redefreiheit") Free speech, here, is limited to opinion. There is no such thing as "i am free to lie, blame, insult, taunt, threaten, defame, verbally harass, berate, incite etc..." with the excuse of free speech. In Germany, if you say: "The president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", AND you cannot prove this as a fact, and the POTUS goes after you for that statement, you will have to compensate for the damages of that claim (this will become very expensive, if the POTUS can prove that he lost reelections because of that statement). If you say: "To my conviction (in my opinion/I believe), the president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", this would be completely legal in Germany. And yes, the distinction matters!

dangxiaopin 7y ago
This reminds me of an actual Soviet joke: "Pres. Reagan: Mr. Brezhnev, in the USA we have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!" "Secretary Brezhnev: Pres. Reagan, in the USSR, we also have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!"
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
Germany isn't America. They are also a vassal state conquered by globalist bankers hellbent on punishing them for eternity for something barely any of the current living population had any part in. Odd choice for an example of "freedom".
fvdessen 7y ago
But that is not how it works universally in Europe. In France for example, you can be condemned for stating objective facts under hate speech laws. For example one journalist was condemned for saying that minorities were over-represented in jail, because they were over-represented in crime. The judge stated that although that was factually true, it would also have a discriminatory impact on the minorities, & the journalist was thus condemned.
- AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
  I did not talk for Europe, just Germany. And I do not approve the suppression of facts. Sorry for France. (Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).
  - cm2187 7y ago
    I believe what the parent comment refers to is the condemnation of Eric Zemmour in 2011. The details are a bit different though substantially in the same spirit. Zemmour argued on TV that (a) the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab and therefore that (b) racial profiling by the police was justified. The court rejected the accusation of racial defamation for claiming (a) but argued that since (b) was discriminatory under French law, condoning racial profiling publicly was advocating for discrimination and he was sentenced for that. One of first results on google if you want to dig more: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-provocation-a-la-discrimination-raciale-18-02-2011-1296980_23.php https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-pr...
    - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
      (I do not speak french, so I am referring only to your post) The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here. If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers! The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group. The math: Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers. With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent. But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small. The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling. So, back to the case: - France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group. - (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people. - Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour. Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?
miracle2k 7y ago
In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first amandment. The difference is that in Germany, "AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me. Some restrictons to Meinungsfreiheit are right there in the constitution - protecting personal honor or protection the children.
- AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
  "In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first amandment."[...] So you are talking to the wrong person. You should reply to user "rlonn" who does not believe that there are (or should be) types A and B in free speech. [...]"AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me.[...] Yes - diatribe exception. In that case, unfortunately, it is also not enough to transform it into "In my opinion, AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole". Granted, it is so much more complicated than free hate speech ;-)
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first am[e]ndment. This is incorrect. (Its inverse is also incorrect.) There isn't a legal consensus on false statements.
  - miracle2k 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  This is untrue. False statements are protected, wven yours.
jevgeni 7y ago
On top of that, German (and I think European, code law) practice has a weighted view of human rights. If two rights come into conflict, one must prevail. For example, if somebody promotes the idea that people should start a "holy war" or go against groups of people, then nobody will be like "Oh yeah, that's their freedom of speech right there". No, this kind of behavior will be considered as violating the primary human right to life and human dignity.

dangxiaopin 7y ago

This reminds me of an actual Soviet joke: "Pres. Reagan: Mr. Brezhnev, in the USA we have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!" "Secretary Brezhnev: Pres. Reagan, in the USSR, we also have free speech- anybody can say in public: President Reagan is a fool!"

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

Germany isn't America. They are also a vassal state conquered by globalist bankers hellbent on punishing them for eternity for something barely any of the current living population had any part in. Odd choice for an example of "freedom".

fvdessen 7y ago

But that is not how it works universally in Europe. In France for example, you can be condemned for stating objective facts under hate speech laws. For example one journalist was condemned for saying that minorities were over-represented in jail, because they were over-represented in crime. The judge stated that although that was factually true, it would also have a discriminatory impact on the minorities, & the journalist was thus condemned.

AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
I did not talk for Europe, just Germany. And I do not approve the suppression of facts. Sorry for France. (Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).
- cm2187 7y ago
  I believe what the parent comment refers to is the condemnation of Eric Zemmour in 2011. The details are a bit different though substantially in the same spirit. Zemmour argued on TV that (a) the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab and therefore that (b) racial profiling by the police was justified. The court rejected the accusation of racial defamation for claiming (a) but argued that since (b) was discriminatory under French law, condoning racial profiling publicly was advocating for discrimination and he was sentenced for that. One of first results on google if you want to dig more: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-provocation-a-la-discrimination-raciale-18-02-2011-1296980_23.php https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/eric-zemmour-condamne-pour-pr...
  - AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
    (I do not speak french, so I am referring only to your post) The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here. If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers! The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group. The math: Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers. With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent. But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small. The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling. So, back to the case: - France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group. - (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people. - Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour. Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?

miracle2k 7y ago

In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first amandment. The difference is that in Germany, "AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me. Some restrictons to Meinungsfreiheit are right there in the constitution - protecting personal honor or protection the children.

AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
"In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first amandment."[...] So you are talking to the wrong person. You should reply to user "rlonn" who does not believe that there are (or should be) types A and B in free speech. [...]"AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me.[...] Yes - diatribe exception. In that case, unfortunately, it is also not enough to transform it into "In my opinion, AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole". Granted, it is so much more complicated than free hate speech ;-)
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> In the US, false statements are also not covered by the first am[e]ndment. This is incorrect. (Its inverse is also incorrect.) There isn't a legal consensus on false statements.
- miracle2k 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact
whenchamenia 7y ago
This is untrue. False statements are protected, wven yours.

jevgeni 7y ago

On top of that, German (and I think European, code law) practice has a weighted view of human rights. If two rights come into conflict, one must prevail. For example, if somebody promotes the idea that people should start a "holy war" or go against groups of people, then nobody will be like "Oh yeah, that's their freedom of speech right there". No, this kind of behavior will be considered as violating the primary human right to life and human dignity.