5 ms·

So when you say free speech do you mean the kind guaranteed by the constitution?

brigandish 4y ago
I'm intrigued as to why it would matter, so I'll go with yes and perhaps you'll decide to tell me why.
skissane 4y ago
"Free speech" is a universal concept, whereas by the "constitution" I assume you mean that of the US. A universal concept isn't limited or controlled by what one particular country's constitution (as interpreted by that country's courts) may have to say about it.
- mariusor 4y ago
  First paragraph on Wikipedia: > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. So, when talking about freedom of speech most nations abide and follow the prescriptions of the international framework supplied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further ratified as members of the United Nations. I think it's safe to speak about the universal concept and the national/political concept as being the identical.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Japan has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has a constitution that is heavily influenced by the US one but it doesn't protect freedom of speech in the way you think it might. From [1]: > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan: > “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.” “regardless of whether such facts are true or false” isn't the way to protect freedom of speech in my mind, nor anyone I've ever heard supporting freedom of speech. Hence, no, it's not safe to conflate the concept and the implementation in law, and not just for this reason but because in the vast majority of cases the implementation in law does not protect freedom of speech to even the amount the US constitution does (which is still not far enough, in my opinion). [1] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/ https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/
    - mariusor 4y ago
      Of course, there will probably be nations that will not abide to the strict letter of the declaration of human rights. I wanted to add a caveat to my initial post, but I thought saying "most nations" would suffice. :) If you're counter arguing my statement with "in the vast majority of cases" I would welcome some supporting evidence on your part. Which Western states have a very different definition of freedom of speech from the one in the declaration of human rights? Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others, a clarification that can be found (again) on Wikipedia: > The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way.
      - least 4y ago
        I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States. There are clear violations of free speech rights in much of Europe and there is basically no protected speech in many other parts of the world. India's constitution follows the guidelines but in practice speech is heavily regulated through hate speech laws. I'm sure there are other countries that actually take the notion of free speech seriously but I'm too ignorant about the laws of every country to know that. Most countries I can think of have glaring issues with protecting people's right to free speech.
        mariusor 4y ago
        If you equate "freedom of speech" with permission to spew "hate speech" unchecked then I'm afraid you also have a different definition of free speech than the rest of the civilized world.
        4y ago
number6 4y ago
Free as in Free Software

I'm intrigued as to why it would matter, so I'll go with yes and perhaps you'll decide to tell me why.

"Free speech" is a universal concept, whereas by the "constitution" I assume you mean that of the US. A universal concept isn't limited or controlled by what one particular country's constitution (as interpreted by that country's courts) may have to say about it.

mariusor 4y ago
First paragraph on Wikipedia: > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. So, when talking about freedom of speech most nations abide and follow the prescriptions of the international framework supplied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further ratified as members of the United Nations. I think it's safe to speak about the universal concept and the national/political concept as being the identical.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Japan has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has a constitution that is heavily influenced by the US one but it doesn't protect freedom of speech in the way you think it might. From [1]: > Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan: > “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.” “regardless of whether such facts are true or false” isn't the way to protect freedom of speech in my mind, nor anyone I've ever heard supporting freedom of speech. Hence, no, it's not safe to conflate the concept and the implementation in law, and not just for this reason but because in the vast majority of cases the implementation in law does not protect freedom of speech to even the amount the US constitution does (which is still not far enough, in my opinion). [1] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/ https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/
  - mariusor 4y ago
    Of course, there will probably be nations that will not abide to the strict letter of the declaration of human rights. I wanted to add a caveat to my initial post, but I thought saying "most nations" would suffice. :) If you're counter arguing my statement with "in the vast majority of cases" I would welcome some supporting evidence on your part. Which Western states have a very different definition of freedom of speech from the one in the declaration of human rights? Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others, a clarification that can be found (again) on Wikipedia: > The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way.
    - least 4y ago
      I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States. There are clear violations of free speech rights in much of Europe and there is basically no protected speech in many other parts of the world. India's constitution follows the guidelines but in practice speech is heavily regulated through hate speech laws. I'm sure there are other countries that actually take the notion of free speech seriously but I'm too ignorant about the laws of every country to know that. Most countries I can think of have glaring issues with protecting people's right to free speech.
      - mariusor 4y ago
        If you equate "freedom of speech" with permission to spew "hate speech" unchecked then I'm afraid you also have a different definition of free speech than the rest of the civilized world.
        4y ago

number6 4y ago

Free as in Free Software