3 ms·

uhh well no i'd say the "American version" is much closer to actually free speech. it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't ha

uhh well no i'd say the "American version" is much closer to actually free speech. it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have. and yes it can, because the internet reaches pretty much everywhere. as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? aren't we doing the same thing with iran, belarus, china, other places where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws?

jevgeni 4y ago
Freedoms are limited by fundamental human rights. You have the right to choose your own profession freely. But nobody complains about not being able to choose "murderer" freely.
arlcode 4y ago
Well if they want European money they better comply with the ruled as they are or lobby a government to get better ones. (If they are tiny they might fly under the radar but since FAANG and friends aren't charities that won't work) It's really "unfortunate" that they managed to piss if their own government so that Washington doesn't feel like helping them out much.
lm28469 4y ago
> it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have Am I supposed to want that ? Also, no. You have libel/defamation/slander laws in a lot of US states, "b-bu-but muh 1st amendment" > as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? Hm, ban these websites out of europe lol ? > where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws? I know the US think they're the center of the universe and the world's police but what "we" defend there is called "human rights"
- collegeburner 4y ago
  yes you are supposed to want that. because there are plenty of cases where truthful and legitimate points have been classified as lies or hate. ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases. how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me. > what "we" defend there is called "human rights" ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > prevents civil disagreement on some important issues Is "civil disagreement" what's feeding the current US political system ? I see a whole lot of disagreement and hate, not a lot of civil or constructive talks

jevgeni 4y ago

Freedoms are limited by fundamental human rights. You have the right to choose your own profession freely. But nobody complains about not being able to choose "murderer" freely.

arlcode 4y ago

Well if they want European money they better comply with the ruled as they are or lobby a government to get better ones. (If they are tiny they might fly under the radar but since FAANG and friends aren't charities that won't work) It's really "unfortunate" that they managed to piss if their own government so that Washington doesn't feel like helping them out much.

lm28469 4y ago

> it implies things like freedom to hate and freedom to lie that y'all don't have Am I supposed to want that ? Also, no. You have libel/defamation/slander laws in a lot of US states, "b-bu-but muh 1st amendment" > as long as there is no server or physical office what can brussels do but scream into the wind about it? Hm, ban these websites out of europe lol ? > where we support "American's version" of free speech despite local laws? I know the US think they're the center of the universe and the world's police but what "we" defend there is called "human rights"

collegeburner 4y ago
yes you are supposed to want that. because there are plenty of cases where truthful and legitimate points have been classified as lies or hate. ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases. how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me. > what "we" defend there is called "human rights" ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > prevents civil disagreement on some important issues Is "civil disagreement" what's feeding the current US political system ? I see a whole lot of disagreement and hate, not a lot of civil or constructive talks