6 ms·

Brit here. Some of this stuff makes me uncomfortable about where to draw the line here. I, frankly, don't know. What makes me even more uncomfortable is not th

Brit here. Some of this stuff makes me uncomfortable about where to draw the line here. I, frankly, don't know. What makes me even more uncomfortable is not that the USA draws the line differently (better? worse? Just right? I don't know) but that so many USA'ians are so utterly cocksure that their way is right and everywhere else must be wrong if they do it differently (Edit: extensively in online posts such as here; in american's I've known I've very rarely found it). There seems no possibility in that mindset for any self-reflection or questioning, and that's dangerous. Just my tuppence ha'penny.

nine_k 4y ago
It's nice to be reminded sometimes how 1776 was not just a religious or economic, but also a cultural split.
cortesoft 4y ago
As an American, the importance of free speech is ingrained in us from a very early age. It is thought of as a foundation of free society, and it is a VERY high bar to justify using the law to prevent speech. It is a Central American value.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Yes. I know that and you've just presented it again without asking yourself if it's right or if others should be judged by your standards. You've kind of made my point.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    Oh, I question it myself all the time. I am still very much in favor of free speech, although I do think we as a society need to work on dealing with the consequences of free speech rather than just thinking it will work itself out. However, my concerns with free speech would never include the types of things the UK is enforcing here. I am not worried about people being upset or hurt by mean things, I am worried about false information and propaganda.
- okasaki 4y ago
  Why? What exactly is it achieving for your society?
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    Possibly a massive lot of good - or not. My point was, it doesn't seem questioned by those who espouse it so strongly, so if it's set wrongly (if we can decide such a thing) it can't be re-set better.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Political stability. The US has operated under its current system of government for longer than any other democratic country. Allowing the craziest to express themselves without being silenced allows the democratic process to play out in a way that legitimizes the outcome.
    - gojomo 4y ago
      I agree that having some of the world's broadest protections for free speech is important to the US political stability, & its technological/cultural/economic power. But, hasn't the UK's "current system of government" been at least as continuous as the US for longer? (Has any regime-discontinuity happened since, say, the adoption of the US Constitution?)
      - kube-system 4y ago
        It does very much depend on how you define “continuous” and “democracy”. That aside, I think there is enough evidence that restricting political speech in a democracy kind of defeats the point and it disenfranchises people. Some counter this by saying “well we only want to ban the extreme speech”, but I’d argue those are exactly the people who are likely to take up pitchforks first. A right to only “moderate” political speech doesn’t make any sense. Moderate speech isn’t a target of censorship.
        gojomo 4y ago
- bitwize 4y ago
  Eh, not really. Before 1969, it was totally legitimate to pass laws restricting or even criminalizing speech, to an extent at least as severe as what prevails in Germany today. One of the first things our country did after adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things outlawed criticism of the incumbent government. The Sedition Act was allowed to expire, and was never declared unconstitutional (though Jeffersonians believed it was). It was only since the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly enough to protect all speech that is not otherwise itself an illegal act (as in CSAM) or does not incite "imminent lawless action".
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  I really dislike this idea of it being a 'central American' value simply because that hasn't been the case since the founding of America. There have always been people who have full access to free speech and the rest of people have 'Free Speech*'. Hundreds of years of minorities being punished for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place while the strong and wealthy get away with whatever they want. Even now that's the case where if you're wealthy you have more speech than others. You can call people all sorts of vile things and sic your fanbase on them, you can mouth off to police and if you want to you can sue people into the ground. The rest of us can get thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor. How quickly people forget that our political apparatus had a woman harassed and jailed for laughing at Jeff Sessons.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    Free speech has absolutely been a central value, since the time of founding, as evidenced by its prominent spot in the 'Bill of Rights'. It hasn't always been fully respected, but for the most part the trends have been good. Only in a few narrow places & times might someone be "thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor", and those are typically undone when the full process runs. The anecdote you share, with the important details filed-off, is that a woman was prosecuted not for merely "laughing at Jeff Sessions" but the more specific charge of disruptive behavior during a government hearing. Opinions differ as to whether he behavior rose to the level of prosecutable disruption, but an actual criminal jury of 12 citizens was somehow convinced to unanimously rule her behavior merited conviction. But then when the full legal process ran, an appelate judge called the conviction 'absurd', throwing out the jury's conviction. Ultimately, that demonstrates that like in other countries, officials in the US can misuse their powers-in-the-moment to attempt some amount of speech punishment, sure. But further that in the US, you can appeal to 'free speech' as a defense, and thus escape punishment for things that might keep you punished in the UK & other somewhat-liberal democracies with lesser speech protections.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      The entire legal system is designed to punish people from the moment of arrest through conviction. Just because a rational judge realized that the case was absurd does not make the hoops she had to go through any less arduous. For example officer writing you a bogus speeding ticket that you can successfully challenge in court still requires time and effort to challenge, moreso than the officer did issuing it and that's very frequently done to poorer individuals. Which again, you ignore that we had (and in many places still have) an amount of people which simply did not have the same free speech rights that you say America was founded upon.
- ninethirty 4y ago
  It appears to me that free speech is being phased out and replaced with SafeSpeech. Its presented like this: "It is actually more free because safe spaces are where people are free-est to speak their minds; free from bullying, etc." fwiw, I find this trend abhorrent, but I can't stop it.
  - userbinator 4y ago
RajT88 4y ago
I see you have met my countrymen and seen how they view the world.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Actually all but a couple of american's I've met have been very thoughtful, and open. The attitude that worries me is expressed online IME. I'll edit my post to say that.
blisterpeanuts 4y ago
Hate speech as a crime is very much a thing in the U.S.; people have been fired from jobs, suspended or expelled from school, even arrested. On the one hand, there’s a long tradition of free speech absolutism, but on the other, also a long tradition of punishing speech. Then it ends up in court where usually it’s declared to be protected by the Bill of Rights. Freedom needs to be re-litigated periodically.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  > Hate speech as a crime is very much a thing in the U.S.; people have been fired from jobs, suspended or expelled from school, even arrested. Isn't this some kind of mob rule basically? This is hard to avoid I think, but it is certainly detrimental to any society. It's at least something that this is not cast into legislation in the US (yet).
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    The other poster is wrong, the only thing listed that's indication of a crime (and even that isn't proof of a crime) is being arrested. Nothing else is indication of any crime whatsoever.
ummonk 4y ago
As an American, I feel harassed and intimidated by your comment attacking people of my nationality. Perhaps I should report you to the police.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  ^ this. There are a lot of things to criticize the US for, believing people should be able to speak their minds aint one of em. Yes, we are better in that regard than any country that restricts speech more than us. Don't like what I just said? Don't care, I live in the US, where such things are allowed.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    > ...believing people should be able to speak their minds aint one of em And I agree. But that wasn't the point at all. Please re-read my post.
  - psd1 4y ago
    I value free speech too. But. Free-speech absolutism is a position you might rethink if you had panzerkampfwagens rolling over your fields in living memory. Visit Auschwitz, then have a think. And fwiw, there are limits to free speech in the US, too. You could get yourself arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a cinema. Does that bother you? Do you feel your rights are curtailed, if you cannot freely express your opinion that a cinema is on fire?
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      This has nothing to do with free-speech absolutism. > You could get yourself arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a cinema. Not only is that not true, the justice that quote is based off of later changed his mind. --- > Visit Auschwitz, then have a think. The US is not a perfect country by any means, but in this we are superior. Freedom is risky, the question is whether the curtailing of freedom is worth it. No way in hell is it worth having the police show up at your door because of a meme image you shared on facebook.
tb_technical 4y ago
American here. We draw the line correctly. Our ancestors gambled their lives (fighting, killing, and sometimes dying to your ancestors) for these rights. So, please understand, our belligerence is an aspect of our culture we've had since the beginning. And if you ever get sick of your government's antics and want somewhere to go, you can always move here! :)
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > American here. We draw the line correctly. So no questioning it, no evidence or justification given, just a plain "we're right"[1]. You've made my point. [1] and by implication "everyone else is wrong"
  - tb_technical 4y ago
    I at least gave you an explanation as to where the belief comes from. We're belligerents, plain and simple. Perhaps we learned it from our parent nation. And, you're right. Everyone else is wrong on this issue. Unfortunately, you're going to have to live with that fact...

nine_k 4y ago

It's nice to be reminded sometimes how 1776 was not just a religious or economic, but also a cultural split.

cortesoft 4y ago

As an American, the importance of free speech is ingrained in us from a very early age. It is thought of as a foundation of free society, and it is a VERY high bar to justify using the law to prevent speech. It is a Central American value.

zasdffaa 4y ago
Yes. I know that and you've just presented it again without asking yourself if it's right or if others should be judged by your standards. You've kind of made my point.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Oh, I question it myself all the time. I am still very much in favor of free speech, although I do think we as a society need to work on dealing with the consequences of free speech rather than just thinking it will work itself out. However, my concerns with free speech would never include the types of things the UK is enforcing here. I am not worried about people being upset or hurt by mean things, I am worried about false information and propaganda.
okasaki 4y ago
Why? What exactly is it achieving for your society?
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Possibly a massive lot of good - or not. My point was, it doesn't seem questioned by those who espouse it so strongly, so if it's set wrongly (if we can decide such a thing) it can't be re-set better.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Political stability. The US has operated under its current system of government for longer than any other democratic country. Allowing the craziest to express themselves without being silenced allows the democratic process to play out in a way that legitimizes the outcome.
  - gojomo 4y ago
    I agree that having some of the world's broadest protections for free speech is important to the US political stability, & its technological/cultural/economic power. But, hasn't the UK's "current system of government" been at least as continuous as the US for longer? (Has any regime-discontinuity happened since, say, the adoption of the US Constitution?)
    - kube-system 4y ago
      It does very much depend on how you define “continuous” and “democracy”. That aside, I think there is enough evidence that restricting political speech in a democracy kind of defeats the point and it disenfranchises people. Some counter this by saying “well we only want to ban the extreme speech”, but I’d argue those are exactly the people who are likely to take up pitchforks first. A right to only “moderate” political speech doesn’t make any sense. Moderate speech isn’t a target of censorship.
      - gojomo 4y ago
bitwize 4y ago
Eh, not really. Before 1969, it was totally legitimate to pass laws restricting or even criminalizing speech, to an extent at least as severe as what prevails in Germany today. One of the first things our country did after adopting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things outlawed criticism of the incumbent government. The Sedition Act was allowed to expire, and was never declared unconstitutional (though Jeffersonians believed it was). It was only since the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly enough to protect all speech that is not otherwise itself an illegal act (as in CSAM) or does not incite "imminent lawless action".
fzeroracer 4y ago
I really dislike this idea of it being a 'central American' value simply because that hasn't been the case since the founding of America. There have always been people who have full access to free speech and the rest of people have 'Free Speech*'. Hundreds of years of minorities being punished for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place while the strong and wealthy get away with whatever they want. Even now that's the case where if you're wealthy you have more speech than others. You can call people all sorts of vile things and sic your fanbase on them, you can mouth off to police and if you want to you can sue people into the ground. The rest of us can get thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor. How quickly people forget that our political apparatus had a woman harassed and jailed for laughing at Jeff Sessons.
- gojomo 4y ago
  Free speech has absolutely been a central value, since the time of founding, as evidenced by its prominent spot in the 'Bill of Rights'. It hasn't always been fully respected, but for the most part the trends have been good. Only in a few narrow places & times might someone be "thrown in jail for vaguely insulting a man in blue's honor", and those are typically undone when the full process runs. The anecdote you share, with the important details filed-off, is that a woman was prosecuted not for merely "laughing at Jeff Sessions" but the more specific charge of disruptive behavior during a government hearing. Opinions differ as to whether he behavior rose to the level of prosecutable disruption, but an actual criminal jury of 12 citizens was somehow convinced to unanimously rule her behavior merited conviction. But then when the full legal process ran, an appelate judge called the conviction 'absurd', throwing out the jury's conviction. Ultimately, that demonstrates that like in other countries, officials in the US can misuse their powers-in-the-moment to attempt some amount of speech punishment, sure. But further that in the US, you can appeal to 'free speech' as a defense, and thus escape punishment for things that might keep you punished in the UK & other somewhat-liberal democracies with lesser speech protections.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    The entire legal system is designed to punish people from the moment of arrest through conviction. Just because a rational judge realized that the case was absurd does not make the hoops she had to go through any less arduous. For example officer writing you a bogus speeding ticket that you can successfully challenge in court still requires time and effort to challenge, moreso than the officer did issuing it and that's very frequently done to poorer individuals. Which again, you ignore that we had (and in many places still have) an amount of people which simply did not have the same free speech rights that you say America was founded upon.
ninethirty 4y ago
It appears to me that free speech is being phased out and replaced with SafeSpeech. Its presented like this: "It is actually more free because safe spaces are where people are free-est to speak their minds; free from bullying, etc." fwiw, I find this trend abhorrent, but I can't stop it.
- userbinator 4y ago

RajT88 4y ago

I see you have met my countrymen and seen how they view the world.

zasdffaa 4y ago
Actually all but a couple of american's I've met have been very thoughtful, and open. The attitude that worries me is expressed online IME. I'll edit my post to say that.

blisterpeanuts 4y ago

Hate speech as a crime is very much a thing in the U.S.; people have been fired from jobs, suspended or expelled from school, even arrested. On the one hand, there’s a long tradition of free speech absolutism, but on the other, also a long tradition of punishing speech. Then it ends up in court where usually it’s declared to be protected by the Bill of Rights. Freedom needs to be re-litigated periodically.

AnonCoward42 4y ago
> Hate speech as a crime is very much a thing in the U.S.; people have been fired from jobs, suspended or expelled from school, even arrested. Isn't this some kind of mob rule basically? This is hard to avoid I think, but it is certainly detrimental to any society. It's at least something that this is not cast into legislation in the US (yet).
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  The other poster is wrong, the only thing listed that's indication of a crime (and even that isn't proof of a crime) is being arrested. Nothing else is indication of any crime whatsoever.

ummonk 4y ago

As an American, I feel harassed and intimidated by your comment attacking people of my nationality. Perhaps I should report you to the police.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
^ this. There are a lot of things to criticize the US for, believing people should be able to speak their minds aint one of em. Yes, we are better in that regard than any country that restricts speech more than us. Don't like what I just said? Don't care, I live in the US, where such things are allowed.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > ...believing people should be able to speak their minds aint one of em And I agree. But that wasn't the point at all. Please re-read my post.
- psd1 4y ago
  I value free speech too. But. Free-speech absolutism is a position you might rethink if you had panzerkampfwagens rolling over your fields in living memory. Visit Auschwitz, then have a think. And fwiw, there are limits to free speech in the US, too. You could get yourself arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a cinema. Does that bother you? Do you feel your rights are curtailed, if you cannot freely express your opinion that a cinema is on fire?
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    This has nothing to do with free-speech absolutism. > You could get yourself arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a cinema. Not only is that not true, the justice that quote is based off of later changed his mind. --- > Visit Auschwitz, then have a think. The US is not a perfect country by any means, but in this we are superior. Freedom is risky, the question is whether the curtailing of freedom is worth it. No way in hell is it worth having the police show up at your door because of a meme image you shared on facebook.

tb_technical 4y ago

American here. We draw the line correctly. Our ancestors gambled their lives (fighting, killing, and sometimes dying to your ancestors) for these rights. So, please understand, our belligerence is an aspect of our culture we've had since the beginning. And if you ever get sick of your government's antics and want somewhere to go, you can always move here! :)

zasdffaa 4y ago
> American here. We draw the line correctly. So no questioning it, no evidence or justification given, just a plain "we're right"[1]. You've made my point. [1] and by implication "everyone else is wrong"
- tb_technical 4y ago
  I at least gave you an explanation as to where the belief comes from. We're belligerents, plain and simple. Perhaps we learned it from our parent nation. And, you're right. Everyone else is wrong on this issue. Unfortunately, you're going to have to live with that fact...