4 ms·

> EU citizens have no freedom of speech I was thinking exactly that the other day, while watching a TV show on national publicly funded television, where a var

> EU citizens have no freedom of speech I was thinking exactly that the other day, while watching a TV show on national publicly funded television, where a variety of pundits where discussing the first year of the present term of the ruling president, and the on-set comedian summed up the situation : "the panel and the country is split in two : those that don't like the ruler, and those who hate him". The youngest panelist (a twitch political streamer) argued about constitution changes with an older panelist (journalist in a far right newspaper). The table was filled with various levels of right center, vaguely socio democrats, a few has been still stuck in the 70s, etc... Everyone talked very loudly and eloquently. We may lack direct power, direct control over our institution, we may live in tight societies with few chances of social mobility, we definitely have press ownership issues, etc... But for one think, i believe we have _some_ freedom of speech. No, I'll leave the floor to those who define "free speech" as "the freedom to insult" :P

fyrn_ 3y ago
The problem with it is that you only have free speech until someone higher in the power structure decides whatever you're saying is insulting. Free speech in the US is actually limited in some ways, for example speech is only protected from abridgement by the government, something that's becoming more relevant by the day as social media platforms gain more and more sway over the public discourse.
- krapp 3y ago
  I'm not aware of a single issue which has been effectively banned from public discourse due to being moderated on social media, nor any person who has been unable to continue public life or communication, for the same reason. Even "vaccine critical" discourse during COVID was rampant during the time when, supposedly, social media platforms erased it completely. The "sway" that social media platforms have over public discourse is often vastly overstated for political ends, certainly compared to that of governments (as the argument is often made that social media platforms are more powerful than governments, to make them seem more threatening.) And the real problem is, if you consider the ability of social media platforms to moderate content to be harmful, the only solution is to have government limit the free speech of those platforms and those who participate on them by coercing them into publishing speech they don't want to, which cedes power to a potentially even worse entity. People are so terrified of the perceived power social media has now (to the point of wanting to make "algorithms" illegal) that they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Facebook can ban me from their platform but at least they can't send goons to my house and ban me from life.
  - phtrivier 3y ago
    This. They are very few (read: "none as far as I know it") people jailed in the EU for having said that vaccines were "dangerous / ineffective / a plot by the governement to inject 5G chip / insert theory here" - neither for writing it on social media, nor for telling it on broadcast radio / TV. However, and sorry for the cliché, there seems to be some places where you can get in jail for calling a "special operation" a cat.
- phtrivier 3y ago
  Well, someone "higher in the power structure" has to decides what your saying is insulting _and_ put in place the means to actually punish you for that. Speech, like pretty much every other freedom, is restricted by laws. And, we do have a pretty decent level of separation of powers as far as "putting people in jail" is concerned; so, to put you in jail for a long time, the "insult" has to be recognized by lawmaker, judges and governement. (The situation is more troublesome for "putting you in jail for a few hours after a demonstration". But the forerunner for "repression" on this front at the moment in Europe, is, ironically enough... the UK [1]. So, good for them that they're not under "EU tyranny" anymore, I guess ?) Europe has a troubled history on this front (we had certain issues for letting certain people "freely" explain why certain religious minorities had to be "dealt" with). So some countries passed some laws barring some discourse about race, slaverly, discrimination, etc... that would be protected by free speech laws in other countries. (And, contrary to one pervasive piece of "free speech", there is not yet a "global goverment" enacting the same laws everywhere. Go figure.) As for free speech on social media platform, that's a different topic. But my very personnal opinion to think that "insulting people while protected by putting the blame on twitter" is not a fundamental right. Open a blog, become a "publisher" under "freedom of the press" laws dating back to the late 1800s. Then, bear the consequences of your speech. (Neither is twitter's right to earn money from publishing insults while claiming they're not a publisher.) But, just my 2c, and I agree to disagree. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/labour-urged-to-say-whether-it-would-scrap-new-anti-protest-laws https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/labour-urge...
lynx23 3y ago
I believed this as well. Then came covid-19, and I had to learn that power corrupts people, same for those on the left as well as those on the right. Since then, I basically lost all believe in the narrative of democracy that I have been fed with my entire life. Its all a lie.
- phtrivier 3y ago
  Emergencies and wars are bad for démocraties. The question is how fast and bad you come out of them. Societies stood, jails are not flooded with opponents, I get the weekly interview of an antivax/covidsceptic/whatever on the radio because they're on the "right" political team, the governments are paying the political prices of their handling in the ballot boxes. This is not perfect and never was meant to. Sorry if you were told otherwise. Tides turn. People you agree with will be in the ruling majority some day. This will hurt even more ;)
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Thanks for this compassionate reply. Its about time that we start understanding eachother even if we are in disagreement. It is subtle, but it really makes a difference. Let me just reply to your last point: < People you agree with will be in the ruling majority some day. This will hurt even more ;) In fact, I am psat that, because this was exactly what happened to me. We had a coalition between center-right and the green party. Even the socialists turned up and everyone seemed to unite into a coalition to divide the people. I am lacking the eloquence in english to explain myself fully, but the lesson I got, sadly, was that you really can not trust anyone to not corrupt and try to control you.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "but the lesson I got, sadly, was that you really can not trust anyone to not corrupt and try to control you. " Even if this would be absolutely true, it would not undermine democracy. It just would proof the need to have build in mechanisms to keep the people in power in check. Exactly because you cannot trust people 100%. And mechanisms like this exist and are in place, but I agree, they should be improved.

fyrn_ 3y ago

The problem with it is that you only have free speech until someone higher in the power structure decides whatever you're saying is insulting. Free speech in the US is actually limited in some ways, for example speech is only protected from abridgement by the government, something that's becoming more relevant by the day as social media platforms gain more and more sway over the public discourse.

krapp 3y ago
I'm not aware of a single issue which has been effectively banned from public discourse due to being moderated on social media, nor any person who has been unable to continue public life or communication, for the same reason. Even "vaccine critical" discourse during COVID was rampant during the time when, supposedly, social media platforms erased it completely. The "sway" that social media platforms have over public discourse is often vastly overstated for political ends, certainly compared to that of governments (as the argument is often made that social media platforms are more powerful than governments, to make them seem more threatening.) And the real problem is, if you consider the ability of social media platforms to moderate content to be harmful, the only solution is to have government limit the free speech of those platforms and those who participate on them by coercing them into publishing speech they don't want to, which cedes power to a potentially even worse entity. People are so terrified of the perceived power social media has now (to the point of wanting to make "algorithms" illegal) that they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Facebook can ban me from their platform but at least they can't send goons to my house and ban me from life.
- phtrivier 3y ago
  This. They are very few (read: "none as far as I know it") people jailed in the EU for having said that vaccines were "dangerous / ineffective / a plot by the governement to inject 5G chip / insert theory here" - neither for writing it on social media, nor for telling it on broadcast radio / TV. However, and sorry for the cliché, there seems to be some places where you can get in jail for calling a "special operation" a cat.
phtrivier 3y ago
Well, someone "higher in the power structure" has to decides what your saying is insulting _and_ put in place the means to actually punish you for that. Speech, like pretty much every other freedom, is restricted by laws. And, we do have a pretty decent level of separation of powers as far as "putting people in jail" is concerned; so, to put you in jail for a long time, the "insult" has to be recognized by lawmaker, judges and governement. (The situation is more troublesome for "putting you in jail for a few hours after a demonstration". But the forerunner for "repression" on this front at the moment in Europe, is, ironically enough... the UK [1]. So, good for them that they're not under "EU tyranny" anymore, I guess ?) Europe has a troubled history on this front (we had certain issues for letting certain people "freely" explain why certain religious minorities had to be "dealt" with). So some countries passed some laws barring some discourse about race, slaverly, discrimination, etc... that would be protected by free speech laws in other countries. (And, contrary to one pervasive piece of "free speech", there is not yet a "global goverment" enacting the same laws everywhere. Go figure.) As for free speech on social media platform, that's a different topic. But my very personnal opinion to think that "insulting people while protected by putting the blame on twitter" is not a fundamental right. Open a blog, become a "publisher" under "freedom of the press" laws dating back to the late 1800s. Then, bear the consequences of your speech. (Neither is twitter's right to earn money from publishing insults while claiming they're not a publisher.) But, just my 2c, and I agree to disagree. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/labour-urged-to-say-whether-it-would-scrap-new-anti-protest-laws https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/labour-urge...

lynx23 3y ago

I believed this as well. Then came covid-19, and I had to learn that power corrupts people, same for those on the left as well as those on the right. Since then, I basically lost all believe in the narrative of democracy that I have been fed with my entire life. Its all a lie.

phtrivier 3y ago
Emergencies and wars are bad for démocraties. The question is how fast and bad you come out of them. Societies stood, jails are not flooded with opponents, I get the weekly interview of an antivax/covidsceptic/whatever on the radio because they're on the "right" political team, the governments are paying the political prices of their handling in the ballot boxes. This is not perfect and never was meant to. Sorry if you were told otherwise. Tides turn. People you agree with will be in the ruling majority some day. This will hurt even more ;)
- lynx23 3y ago
  Thanks for this compassionate reply. Its about time that we start understanding eachother even if we are in disagreement. It is subtle, but it really makes a difference. Let me just reply to your last point: < People you agree with will be in the ruling majority some day. This will hurt even more ;) In fact, I am psat that, because this was exactly what happened to me. We had a coalition between center-right and the green party. Even the socialists turned up and everyone seemed to unite into a coalition to divide the people. I am lacking the eloquence in english to explain myself fully, but the lesson I got, sadly, was that you really can not trust anyone to not corrupt and try to control you.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "but the lesson I got, sadly, was that you really can not trust anyone to not corrupt and try to control you. " Even if this would be absolutely true, it would not undermine democracy. It just would proof the need to have build in mechanisms to keep the people in power in check. Exactly because you cannot trust people 100%. And mechanisms like this exist and are in place, but I agree, they should be improved.