7 ms·

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. We might have dialed it back a bit after that. But what do I know ? There seems to be some a profound divide between America and Europe on this front and I haven't quite put my finger on why yet.

stiray 7y ago
I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.
- Darkstryder 7y ago
  Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US. Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?
    - Darkstryder 7y ago
      Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      > Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.
      - jigglesniggle 7y ago
        The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment. You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
        lostjohnny 7y ago
        > You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare. And that has severe consequences as you see. Popper said it many years ago.
        SpelingBeeChamp 7y ago
        I don’t believe that is accurate. Courts routinely issue gag orders.
      - foobarandgrill 7y ago
        The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences* *Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.
    - bloak 7y ago
      "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        I mean civil consequences. If someone says something I dislike, and I disassociate with them, that's a consequence. Nobody should ever be jailed for their speech and that's what it's designed to protect against. Libel is special because it's purely a civil matter and usually has to prove malicious intentions.
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech. Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist charge.
        hgjbhujxgjbv 7y ago
        Please dont do it. 1A is protecting you, but they still got guys with batons, tear gas and tazers. It is not about the letter within some law but rather how it is practised, by insulting someone strong enough, law might protect you but at the end you will still finish as a begger. And, me personally, I wouldnt dare to do it in states. Actually I would rather do it in Switzerland. Or maybe even Thailand.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  You have it, but it's not pure free speech US style, everything is good because it's the constitution, like bearing arms and whatnot, you have the right to your opinions, but some opinions could lead you to jail. Which is slightly different.
YinglingLight 7y ago
You're afraid of free speech? Manipulation occurs no matter how open or free communication is. Discourse and skepticism are the only weapons we have against Manipulation, and those exist via free speech.
inimino 7y ago
America was settled largely by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. > It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. Um, I'm not sure what they put in your history books over there, but I'm certain that's not an accurate characterization of how that happened.
jigglesniggle 7y ago
Blaming WWII on free speech is like blaming 9/11 on planes. If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative, though I do not understand it.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative We can legally drink before the age of 21 because we are able to control ourselves. We can have sex between 14 and 16 years, because we are able to control ourselves. We don't shoot other people in school when we are upset, because we are able to control ourselves. Tell me more about your strength... https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg
  - jigglesniggle 7y ago
    Each of those minor freedoms pales in comparison to the freedom to speak your mind or resist tyranny. What I have seen of European society, Europeans are content to have a boot on their throat and make some token effort to appear free.
    - inimino 7y ago
      I vouched for these comments because, while perhaps nearer to one extreme, I believe this perspective deserves to be heard. Also: > And an orator said, Speak to us of Freedom. And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes. And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you. And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.
cameronbrown 7y ago
Free speech is not responsible for WWII at all?! You forget that Hitler's ideas were popular at the time - that's why he was elected. Slowly but surely it was the free speech of Jews, their very ability to combat the incoming tyranny before it was to late, was clamped down on. As such, censorship was quite popular. Free speech levels the playing field between government and people.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights. I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that. In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech. 2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      Your legal name is: $name Your Address is: $address Your phone is: #ph You work at: $employer You did X abhorrent thing (fakes picture or video with deepfakes). It would be a shame if something happened to you. ------------------------------- That right there is indeed verbal violence, AND a call to arms to enact violence against you.
      - whateversclever 7y ago
        That right there is not an example of violence, despite any assertions to the contrary. There is a clear distinction between statements and actions.
sampo 7y ago
> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result We also needed Americans to save us Europeans from those other Europeans.
- shadowprofile77 7y ago
  > last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result Aside from being really smug about Europe's supposed superiority today, this comment is just factually misleading. For one thing, it wasn't "unadulterated free speech" that got Hitler into a position of dictatorial power, it was backroom politics, legal manipulation, and finally laws and a German constitution that were extremely pliant towards misuse and reinterpretation for the sake of dictatorship, with all kinds of clauses in favor of martial law, censorship and so forth that the Nazis used to powerful effect once Hitler was appointed chancellor. Had they been dealing with something more absolutist about freedoms like the U.S constitution, his road to dictatorship would have been much more difficult, chancellor or no. You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. In other words: Hitler's rabidly racist speeches never once won him a single electoral victory in Germany (and this even at a time when anti-semitism and racism were much more popular). The much greater damage was done by a weak constitution ridden with clauses against individual freedom, which couldn't effectively stop Hitler from becoming a dictator once he got the chancellors office.
  - sampo 7y ago
    > You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. Not my claim, it was the GP's claim and I was also disagreeing with it.
    - shadowprofile77 7y ago
      I saw that and sorry. I couldn't find his original claim again and just replied to you. Cheers
jknoepfler 7y ago
There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since. No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights. We cannot, for example, incite people to a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater, or go on the radio and accuse our boss of murdering children. The restrictions against Holocaust denial in Germany (for example) aren't different in kind. Europeans enjoy broad freedom to publish whatever they want about their government, critical or otherwise. This is in stark contrast with China, Russia, most countries under some form of religious rule, and most dictatorships, where criticizing the government will get you tortured to death or sent to a labor camp at worst, and severely fined and blacklisted from government service at best. The "median Western European" may have a more nuanced view on the right to free speech than the median citizen of the United States, but I'd attribute that to a superior education system and decades of trying to undo structural economic injustice rather than a cultural divide (which is complete nonsense, honestly).
- whateversclever 7y ago
  Anyone absolutely can "Yell fire in a theater" in the US, this canard has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you. You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.
  - jknoepfler 7y ago
    The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.

stiray 7y ago

I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.

Darkstryder 7y ago
Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US. Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?
  - Darkstryder 7y ago
    Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.
    - jigglesniggle 7y ago
      The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment. You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
      - lostjohnny 7y ago
        > You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare. And that has severe consequences as you see. Popper said it many years ago.
      - SpelingBeeChamp 7y ago
        I don’t believe that is accurate. Courts routinely issue gag orders.
    - foobarandgrill 7y ago
      The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences* *Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.
  - bloak 7y ago
    "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      I mean civil consequences. If someone says something I dislike, and I disassociate with them, that's a consequence. Nobody should ever be jailed for their speech and that's what it's designed to protect against. Libel is special because it's purely a civil matter and usually has to prove malicious intentions.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech. Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist charge.
      - hgjbhujxgjbv 7y ago
        Please dont do it. 1A is protecting you, but they still got guys with batons, tear gas and tazers. It is not about the letter within some law but rather how it is practised, by insulting someone strong enough, law might protect you but at the end you will still finish as a begger. And, me personally, I wouldnt dare to do it in states. Actually I would rather do it in Switzerland. Or maybe even Thailand.
lostjohnny 7y ago
You have it, but it's not pure free speech US style, everything is good because it's the constitution, like bearing arms and whatnot, you have the right to your opinions, but some opinions could lead you to jail. Which is slightly different.

YinglingLight 7y ago

You're afraid of free speech? Manipulation occurs no matter how open or free communication is. Discourse and skepticism are the only weapons we have against Manipulation, and those exist via free speech.

inimino 7y ago

America was settled largely by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. > It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. Um, I'm not sure what they put in your history books over there, but I'm certain that's not an accurate characterization of how that happened.

jigglesniggle 7y ago

Blaming WWII on free speech is like blaming 9/11 on planes. If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative, though I do not understand it.

lostjohnny 7y ago
> If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative We can legally drink before the age of 21 because we are able to control ourselves. We can have sex between 14 and 16 years, because we are able to control ourselves. We don't shoot other people in school when we are upset, because we are able to control ourselves. Tell me more about your strength... https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  Each of those minor freedoms pales in comparison to the freedom to speak your mind or resist tyranny. What I have seen of European society, Europeans are content to have a boot on their throat and make some token effort to appear free.
  - inimino 7y ago
    I vouched for these comments because, while perhaps nearer to one extreme, I believe this perspective deserves to be heard. Also: > And an orator said, Speak to us of Freedom. And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes. And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you. And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Free speech is not responsible for WWII at all?! You forget that Hitler's ideas were popular at the time - that's why he was elected. Slowly but surely it was the free speech of Jews, their very ability to combat the incoming tyranny before it was to late, was clamped down on. As such, censorship was quite popular. Free speech levels the playing field between government and people.

lostjohnny 7y ago
I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights. I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that. In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech. 2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Your legal name is: $name Your Address is: $address Your phone is: #ph You work at: $employer You did X abhorrent thing (fakes picture or video with deepfakes). It would be a shame if something happened to you. ------------------------------- That right there is indeed verbal violence, AND a call to arms to enact violence against you.
    - whateversclever 7y ago
      That right there is not an example of violence, despite any assertions to the contrary. There is a clear distinction between statements and actions.

sampo 7y ago

> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result We also needed Americans to save us Europeans from those other Europeans.

shadowprofile77 7y ago
> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result Aside from being really smug about Europe's supposed superiority today, this comment is just factually misleading. For one thing, it wasn't "unadulterated free speech" that got Hitler into a position of dictatorial power, it was backroom politics, legal manipulation, and finally laws and a German constitution that were extremely pliant towards misuse and reinterpretation for the sake of dictatorship, with all kinds of clauses in favor of martial law, censorship and so forth that the Nazis used to powerful effect once Hitler was appointed chancellor. Had they been dealing with something more absolutist about freedoms like the U.S constitution, his road to dictatorship would have been much more difficult, chancellor or no. You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. In other words: Hitler's rabidly racist speeches never once won him a single electoral victory in Germany (and this even at a time when anti-semitism and racism were much more popular). The much greater damage was done by a weak constitution ridden with clauses against individual freedom, which couldn't effectively stop Hitler from becoming a dictator once he got the chancellors office.
- sampo 7y ago
  > You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. Not my claim, it was the GP's claim and I was also disagreeing with it.
  - shadowprofile77 7y ago
    I saw that and sorry. I couldn't find his original claim again and just replied to you. Cheers

jknoepfler 7y ago

There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since. No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights. We cannot, for example, incite people to a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater, or go on the radio and accuse our boss of murdering children. The restrictions against Holocaust denial in Germany (for example) aren't different in kind. Europeans enjoy broad freedom to publish whatever they want about their government, critical or otherwise. This is in stark contrast with China, Russia, most countries under some form of religious rule, and most dictatorships, where criticizing the government will get you tortured to death or sent to a labor camp at worst, and severely fined and blacklisted from government service at best. The "median Western European" may have a more nuanced view on the right to free speech than the median citizen of the United States, but I'd attribute that to a superior education system and decades of trying to undo structural economic injustice rather than a cultural divide (which is complete nonsense, honestly).

whateversclever 7y ago
Anyone absolutely can "Yell fire in a theater" in the US, this canard has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you. You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.
- jknoepfler 7y ago
  The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.