6 ms·

Go to Europe and say the holocaust didn't happen, see what occurs. In fact many countries in Europe have blasphemy laws and they uphold them: https://www.theat

by mwyah 7y ago

Go to Europe and say the holocaust didn't happen, see what occurs. In fact many countries in Europe have blasphemy laws and they uphold them: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

throwaway66920 7y ago
Meanwhile in America you are liable for insulting vegetables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws Point is, every country has exceptions, and indexing on irrelevant edge cases isn’t especially useful. America is pretty darn good at free speech. But so is, say, Canada.
- j8014 7y ago
  That has nothing to do with free speech. If I grow some vegetables and sell them and you come along and start advertising that they are poisonous with 0 evidence you can be sued by me for damages.
  - ckpcw 7y ago
    It really is about free speech, though. What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous? 'free speech' also includes zero-evidence claims, and even lies! Freedom of speech == Freedom of fake news.
    - jldugger 7y ago
      > What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous? Why use hypotheticals when we can use real examples? Kosher and hilal have opinions on food and cleanliness, and no lawsuits to my knowledge. That stuff is like double first amendment protected, considering it's both speech and religion.
    - corodra 7y ago
      "You're an asshole." That's protected as free speech and is recognizably known as an opinion. "Your carrots gives people AIDS." Is slander/libel and not protected by free speech. That can be taken as fact and can have consequences to the grower, if the accuser lacks evidence. For fuck's sake, we have anti-vaxxers and measles is coming back due to people making stupid ass claims. If there is evidence and the courts say the accuser was acting in good faith with information they truly thought was true, they may pass on penalties, depending on the situation. Otherwise, if it's bullshit evidence, free speech won't protect you and yo' ass shall burn. Now freedom of religion and freedom of speech do spar with each other. But it depends on the situation. Mormons say that alcohol is a ticket to hell... a sin... or some shit. If they keep that crap to their own little group, generally no one cares. That also plays into the right to assemble. If they parade around in bars yelling at people that alcohol is a sin/whatever... well, A. trespassing, B. potential harassment, C. I think potential slander or some other form of loss of revenue for the bar. D. Don't live in a fucking mormon town, you idiot. You can tell a politician that they're an asshole or their policy is stupid and they should feel bad about that. The gov cannot do dick all to you. An opinion on policy or the gov in general is protected. But you can't say a politician is a child murderer without ACTUAL proof. Youtube "research" into the lizard people taking over the planet doesn't count. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be a cunt to society because you're some childish edge lord. If you really don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't vote either.
  - throwaway66920 7y ago
    That’s correct. The problem is that the American agricultural industry has gotten laws that enable them to punish you for saying things that are, in fact, true, but inconvenient for them. These are specific laws handed out to prevent whistleblowers and researchers
- beerandt 7y ago
  This is a civil matter between two non-government entities. It has nothing to do with government restrictions on or criminalizing speech. It's a form of fraud.
  - throwaway66920 7y ago
    If the government offers special interest groups special laws to impose economic penalties on others for saying certain things, then free speech has been restricted, just by different mechanisms. I understand this says “libel” laws but does not mean they are fair or only preventative of actual fraud. In many cases they’re used against claims which are actually true or said without the intent to deceive. This is a better source than the Wikipedia I provided. https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel/ https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel/
    - beerandt 7y ago
      If anything that article proves the law is working as intended. Truthful claims were allowed.
      - throwaway66920 7y ago
        They did, but the court fees were high, and are high enough to dissuade people who aren’t billionaire talk show hosts from saying similar things. As I said, America is quite good at free speech. But it has its gaps, much like most other countries which would self identify as free speech countries. In the grand scheme, they really don’t matter.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Freedom of speech is specifically meant to protect citizens from oppressive governments. It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive government.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  The downvotes are telling. Is HN becoming 4chan?
  - howard941 7y ago
    The downvotes are too easy. They should cost karma.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    Disagreeing with your statement is not the same as agreeing with holocaust denial.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- leftyted 7y ago
  There are many arguments for freedom of speech. One of the most famous centers around the idea that no one should have the ability to decide what can't be said because that assumes infallability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp... So, yes, from this perspective, freedom of speech exists to protect Holocaust deniers. The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. I don't think there are very many Holocaust deniers and I also expect that, somewhat unintuitively, banning Holocaust denial would create more neo-nazis. Banning an idea confers a certain amount of glamour.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    > The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. Suuure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
LanceH 7y ago
"Right to be forgotten" laws ban facts.
decebalus1 7y ago
There's a nice little compilation [1] about free speech exceptions in the United States. It may be very helpful for climbing down high horses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

by mwyah 7y ago

throwaway66920 7y ago

Meanwhile in America you are liable for insulting vegetables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws Point is, every country has exceptions, and indexing on irrelevant edge cases isn’t especially useful. America is pretty darn good at free speech. But so is, say, Canada.

j8014 7y ago
That has nothing to do with free speech. If I grow some vegetables and sell them and you come along and start advertising that they are poisonous with 0 evidence you can be sued by me for damages.
- ckpcw 7y ago
  It really is about free speech, though. What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous? 'free speech' also includes zero-evidence claims, and even lies! Freedom of speech == Freedom of fake news.
  - jldugger 7y ago
    > What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous? Why use hypotheticals when we can use real examples? Kosher and hilal have opinions on food and cleanliness, and no lawsuits to my knowledge. That stuff is like double first amendment protected, considering it's both speech and religion.
  - corodra 7y ago
    "You're an asshole." That's protected as free speech and is recognizably known as an opinion. "Your carrots gives people AIDS." Is slander/libel and not protected by free speech. That can be taken as fact and can have consequences to the grower, if the accuser lacks evidence. For fuck's sake, we have anti-vaxxers and measles is coming back due to people making stupid ass claims. If there is evidence and the courts say the accuser was acting in good faith with information they truly thought was true, they may pass on penalties, depending on the situation. Otherwise, if it's bullshit evidence, free speech won't protect you and yo' ass shall burn. Now freedom of religion and freedom of speech do spar with each other. But it depends on the situation. Mormons say that alcohol is a ticket to hell... a sin... or some shit. If they keep that crap to their own little group, generally no one cares. That also plays into the right to assemble. If they parade around in bars yelling at people that alcohol is a sin/whatever... well, A. trespassing, B. potential harassment, C. I think potential slander or some other form of loss of revenue for the bar. D. Don't live in a fucking mormon town, you idiot. You can tell a politician that they're an asshole or their policy is stupid and they should feel bad about that. The gov cannot do dick all to you. An opinion on policy or the gov in general is protected. But you can't say a politician is a child murderer without ACTUAL proof. Youtube "research" into the lizard people taking over the planet doesn't count. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be a cunt to society because you're some childish edge lord. If you really don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't vote either.
- throwaway66920 7y ago
  That’s correct. The problem is that the American agricultural industry has gotten laws that enable them to punish you for saying things that are, in fact, true, but inconvenient for them. These are specific laws handed out to prevent whistleblowers and researchers
beerandt 7y ago
This is a civil matter between two non-government entities. It has nothing to do with government restrictions on or criminalizing speech. It's a form of fraud.
- throwaway66920 7y ago
  If the government offers special interest groups special laws to impose economic penalties on others for saying certain things, then free speech has been restricted, just by different mechanisms. I understand this says “libel” laws but does not mean they are fair or only preventative of actual fraud. In many cases they’re used against claims which are actually true or said without the intent to deceive. This is a better source than the Wikipedia I provided. https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel/ https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel/
  - beerandt 7y ago
    If anything that article proves the law is working as intended. Truthful claims were allowed.
    - throwaway66920 7y ago
      They did, but the court fees were high, and are high enough to dissuade people who aren’t billionaire talk show hosts from saying similar things. As I said, America is quite good at free speech. But it has its gaps, much like most other countries which would self identify as free speech countries. In the grand scheme, they really don’t matter.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

Freedom of speech is specifically meant to protect citizens from oppressive governments. It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive government.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
The downvotes are telling. Is HN becoming 4chan?
- howard941 7y ago
  The downvotes are too easy. They should cost karma.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  Disagreeing with your statement is not the same as agreeing with holocaust denial.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
leftyted 7y ago
There are many arguments for freedom of speech. One of the most famous centers around the idea that no one should have the ability to decide what can't be said because that assumes infallability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp... So, yes, from this perspective, freedom of speech exists to protect Holocaust deniers. The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. I don't think there are very many Holocaust deniers and I also expect that, somewhat unintuitively, banning Holocaust denial would create more neo-nazis. Banning an idea confers a certain amount of glamour.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. Suuure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

LanceH 7y ago

"Right to be forgotten" laws ban facts.

decebalus1 7y ago

There's a nice little compilation [1] about free speech exceptions in the United States. It may be very helpful for climbing down high horses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...