3 ms·

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 po

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.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    This is completely and utterly wrong. There are simply no supporters of free speech who differentiate it from "hate" speech, only the opponents of free speech do that so let's have nothing so mendacious enter the discussion. Freedom of speech is required in order to protect speech that others would prefer not to be expressed - no protection is needed for inoffensive speech, what would be the point! As to "the rest of the civilized world", as pointed out several times now, very little of the "civilized" world has strong speech protections. Germany? Laws against Holocaust denial and defamatory fake news[1], which sounds Orwellian. France isn't pro-free speech either[2]. The UK has the backwards Communication Act and libel laws that are criticised the world over[3], leading to hundreds of convictions a year[4], including for posting your favourite rap lyrics[5]. Canada's free speech protections are anything but[6]. Australia has "less protection of free speech than most Western countries" according to a former High Court judge and there are raids on journalists[7], which we know happens in the US all too regularly[8] as well despite its much lauded first amendment. Italy charges writers for expressing opinions[9]. Perhaps I could complete the G8 with the state of free speech in Russia? Or you'd like to move on to places like Norway that only managed to get rid of its lese majeste laws in 2015? Or Thailand that still has them. Germany only got rid of its lese majeste laws in 2018 after a dictator tried to use them against a satririst, which brings us full circle and we haven't even touched the worst parts of the world. [1] https://apnews.com/article/europe-germany-business-3d266e6deb4b419583b9ebae73734213 https://apnews.com/article/europe-germany-business-3d266e6de... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/france-is-not-the-free-speech-champion-it-says-it-is/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/fran... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways#mainContent https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/... [4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-... [5] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921#main-heading https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921#main... [6] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/despite-what-you-may-think-canadians-dont-actually-have-freedom-of-speech https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/despite-what-you-may-th... [7] https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-protect-free-speech-but-it-could-118448 https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-protect-free-sp... [8] https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-us/ https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-... [9] https://pen.org/sabotaging-free-speech-in-italy/ https://pen.org/sabotaging-free-speech-in-italy/
- skissane 4y ago
  > I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States Nobody supports unlimited free speech. Everyone accepts there needs to be certain limits. Suppose there is a billionaire with a very dark personality, and you are a low-paid waiter in a restaurant. He's unhappy with the service you provided, and is in a particularly angry mood today, so he instructs his minions to falsely label you as a child molester, and spends millions spreading that false accusation across the globe, simply as a way of hurting you–does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech? But if you don't, you support defamation laws as a limit on free speech at least in some extreme cases, even if you think many of those laws (as they currently exist) go way too far. So, if we accept free speech has to be subject to some limits – the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)? Is there some objective answer to how that balance ought to be drawn? You seem to think that the US does a better job of that than most other countries (or maybe even every other country)–maybe you are right, but surely that's an argument that needs to be made, rather than simply something which is self-evident (as you seem to think it is).
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech? Some do propose this, most don't. > the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)? - freedom from defamation, provide a justice system where truth is the ultimate defence (as common law states have - it could be improved though) - freedom from fraud, already covered by contract law and caveat emptor - freedom from privacy invasion, that is part of free speech (you choose who you share information with, hence, privacy is implied and necessary) - freedom from perjury, there are laws against perjury in common law
brigandish 4y ago
> Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others As I pointed out, Japan's defamation law is painted in such a way as to make it so broad that it affects all speech. Hence, bringing up such an exception is not a refutation of the point but an indictment of the exception itself. As to the "national security" exception, the US's FISA courts are a good example - or should that be bad example? - of why such an exception is easily abused. Have you not heard of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks? > 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. 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia 2. If we were talking about the meaning of common words in common use I might agree on relying on a dictionary but we are not 3. Wikipedia is also not a source of truth in a discussion on free speech. If you wish to argue your point then try to steel man it instead of looking for ways to avoid dealing with those made by your opponents, please. 4. The Oxford English dictionary defines "free speech" thus: > free speech > noun [mass noun] > the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint: it violated the first-amendment guarantee of free speech. That doesn't support your point. And since you brought it up, my own definition: Speech can be said to be free when one has the ability to share a view: - with whom one chooses - at a time of one's choosing - without interference or punishment (physical or otherwise) by government or society and that view is neither maliciously false nor a credible and imminent threat.

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.
- brigandish 4y ago
  This is completely and utterly wrong. There are simply no supporters of free speech who differentiate it from "hate" speech, only the opponents of free speech do that so let's have nothing so mendacious enter the discussion. Freedom of speech is required in order to protect speech that others would prefer not to be expressed - no protection is needed for inoffensive speech, what would be the point! As to "the rest of the civilized world", as pointed out several times now, very little of the "civilized" world has strong speech protections. Germany? Laws against Holocaust denial and defamatory fake news[1], which sounds Orwellian. France isn't pro-free speech either[2]. The UK has the backwards Communication Act and libel laws that are criticised the world over[3], leading to hundreds of convictions a year[4], including for posting your favourite rap lyrics[5]. Canada's free speech protections are anything but[6]. Australia has "less protection of free speech than most Western countries" according to a former High Court judge and there are raids on journalists[7], which we know happens in the US all too regularly[8] as well despite its much lauded first amendment. Italy charges writers for expressing opinions[9]. Perhaps I could complete the G8 with the state of free speech in Russia? Or you'd like to move on to places like Norway that only managed to get rid of its lese majeste laws in 2015? Or Thailand that still has them. Germany only got rid of its lese majeste laws in 2018 after a dictator tried to use them against a satririst, which brings us full circle and we haven't even touched the worst parts of the world. [1] https://apnews.com/article/europe-germany-business-3d266e6deb4b419583b9ebae73734213 https://apnews.com/article/europe-germany-business-3d266e6de... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/france-is-not-the-free-speech-champion-it-says-it-is/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/fran... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways#mainContent https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/... [4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-... [5] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921#main-heading https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921#main... [6] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/despite-what-you-may-think-canadians-dont-actually-have-freedom-of-speech https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/despite-what-you-may-th... [7] https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-protect-free-speech-but-it-could-118448 https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-protect-free-sp... [8] https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-us/ https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-... [9] https://pen.org/sabotaging-free-speech-in-italy/ https://pen.org/sabotaging-free-speech-in-italy/
skissane 4y ago
> I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States Nobody supports unlimited free speech. Everyone accepts there needs to be certain limits. Suppose there is a billionaire with a very dark personality, and you are a low-paid waiter in a restaurant. He's unhappy with the service you provided, and is in a particularly angry mood today, so he instructs his minions to falsely label you as a child molester, and spends millions spreading that false accusation across the globe, simply as a way of hurting you–does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech? But if you don't, you support defamation laws as a limit on free speech at least in some extreme cases, even if you think many of those laws (as they currently exist) go way too far. So, if we accept free speech has to be subject to some limits – the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)? Is there some objective answer to how that balance ought to be drawn? You seem to think that the US does a better job of that than most other countries (or maybe even every other country)–maybe you are right, but surely that's an argument that needs to be made, rather than simply something which is self-evident (as you seem to think it is).
- brigandish 4y ago
  > does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech? Some do propose this, most don't. > the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)? - freedom from defamation, provide a justice system where truth is the ultimate defence (as common law states have - it could be improved though) - freedom from fraud, already covered by contract law and caveat emptor - freedom from privacy invasion, that is part of free speech (you choose who you share information with, hence, privacy is implied and necessary) - freedom from perjury, there are laws against perjury in common law

brigandish 4y ago

> Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others As I pointed out, Japan's defamation law is painted in such a way as to make it so broad that it affects all speech. Hence, bringing up such an exception is not a refutation of the point but an indictment of the exception itself. As to the "national security" exception, the US's FISA courts are a good example - or should that be bad example? - of why such an exception is easily abused. Have you not heard of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks? > 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. 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia 2. If we were talking about the meaning of common words in common use I might agree on relying on a dictionary but we are not 3. Wikipedia is also not a source of truth in a discussion on free speech. If you wish to argue your point then try to steel man it instead of looking for ways to avoid dealing with those made by your opponents, please. 4. The Oxford English dictionary defines "free speech" thus: > free speech > noun [mass noun] > the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint: it violated the first-amendment guarantee of free speech. That doesn't support your point. And since you brought it up, my own definition: Speech can be said to be free when one has the ability to share a view: - with whom one chooses - at a time of one's choosing - without interference or punishment (physical or otherwise) by government or society and that view is neither maliciously false nor a credible and imminent threat.