5 ms·

Always felt that the EU on this point should be a bit like USA and have lax laws on a federal/union level while allowing its member states to have whatever hate

by 0dayz 1y ago

Always felt that the EU on this point should be a bit like USA and have lax laws on a federal/union level while allowing its member states to have whatever hate speech laws they want. While I support the idea the issue is that hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority", despite the minority being even more vulgar and racist than the natives.

mrandish 1y ago
> hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority" Indeed, history is full of examples of speech laws being used by those in power to silence those not in power, from war protestors (WW1 to Vietnam) to civil rights protestors. The U.S. courts didn't start out with the current expansive interpretation of free speech. Initially they tried various ways of stopping only the "bad speech" while permitting the "good speech. Over decades of trial and error, the U.S. courts saw how it always ended in abuse of the powerless by the powerful and eventually realized the only long-term solution is expansive free speech rights for all. Personally, I think the U.S. legal system eventually managed to get free speech rights into a very good balance. While I find the first amendment protected speech of some of my fellow Americans to be reprehensible and disgusting, I'll defend their right to speak because the alternative of granting the government the power to punish words instead of actions is far scarier.
- Anonbrit 1y ago
  The USA jailed a student for 45 days for worrying an op-ed suggesting that the situation with Gaza was plausibly genocide. The president of the USA punished a bunch of law firms for defending clients. It doesn't have free speech laws, it has a collective delusion.
  - mrandish 1y ago
    > It doesn't have free speech laws While I agree the current US administration is exercising the executive branch's discretionary power in novel and aggressive ways I certainly don't approve of, the student examples I'm aware of involve leveraging existing immigration laws where the student is on a conditional visa which can be revoked on subjective grounds which amount to little more than 'being undesirable'. The relevant immigration laws aren't new and haven't changed. The only difference is they are now being enforced in cases where they previously weren't. While some of these have clearly been examples of selective enforcement based on the student's behavior including speech, the administration is resorting to non-speech immigration laws because they can't punish the student's speech directly. In fact, there were many more students protesting alongside those deported who the administration has been unable to touch because they are citizens or legal residents. Despite the regrettable outcome for these students, this is evidence the first amendment is not only strong but remains an almost untouchable 'third rail' in both U.S. law and U.S. politics. The issues around various Washington law and lobbying firms which I know of aren't speech related, they're just a new tactic in typical partisan warfare. That warfare itself isn't new. Every time the administration changes parties the fortunes of 'the other side's' law and lobbying firms change through losing discretionary contracts, clearances and approvals. We normally just don't hear about it. This is especially true when Congress is controlled by the same party as the White House (which tends to happen every 8 to 12 years and last for two years). So, I agree with you in strongly disapproving of these new tactics and aggressive partisan gamesmanship, especially because now that the Republicans have introduced these new tactics, history shows the Democrats will use them in retaliation when they regain power. My point was specific. The US courts have done a good job balancing the interpretation of the first amendment (although it took over a hundred years of correcting early bad rulings), which I still believe is true. However, I didn't say that about other areas of U.S. law which still need improvement. Notably selective enforcement and executive branch discretionary authority. The silver lining to the current dark cloud is now that the current admin has 'weaponized' these discretionary powers it's already triggered a large number of legal challenges, so the courts will have the opportunity to tighten interpretations of current laws. In cases where current laws don't address these issues, it will be up to future Congresses to create or amend laws. Personally, I think both of these areas could benefit from new legislation - especially selective enforcement. Current U.S. law has some restrictions on selective enforcement but it's limited to certain domains. I'm in favor of making enforcement of most laws and regulations a 'use it or lose it' proposition for government. If they chose to not enforce it before, they can't suddenly start to enforce it now. Obviously, that's a pretty radical approach and would have a lot of interesting consequences but I think it would be net positive. For one, it would almost certainly result in unenforced laws being effectively repealed (and we have a lot of those, especially on the state level). But I think the most valuable aspect would be forcing administrators and courts to decide which laws we actually need and to more precisely define policies for enforcing them instead of relying on ad hoc subjective judgements of bureaucrats and politicians. Back on the OP topic of 'hate speech' laws in the EU, the current shit show in the U.S. should be a huge wake up call to EU citizens that it's a very bad idea to grant government the power to punish speech instead of just actions. I believe representative democracy is the best political system but worry not enough people understand that in a democracy, when choosing how much power to give to the government, it's crucial to realize people you don't like will sometimes be in power and they'll abuse the power you granted government back when people you liked were in control. What's happening now in the U.S. is a hard reminder of this eternal truth. I believe Trump's actions will lead to all U.S. presidents having less discretionary power in the future - and that's a good thing.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    > The USA jailed a student for 45 days for worrying an op-ed suggesting that the situation with Gaza was plausibly genocide. ... by abusing the fact that the student in question is not a citizen, thereby working around that whole pesky First Amendment thing. If anything, this goes to show what would happen to everyone if they could do that. And the obvious takeaway from it is that First Amendment should apply in full to immigrants, including obvious retaliation through unrelated immigration regulations.
    - slt2021 1y ago
      the student is a permanent resident and paying taxes just as citizens. if the first amendment doesnt apply to permanent residents, then all other laws shouldnt apply either, meaning foreigners should be exempt of all taxes?
bestouff 1y ago
[flagged]
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > I think the USA is a textbook example […] I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my main concern is that once you have certain laws you can never be sure how they'll be used in the future—see perhaps current situation in 2025. You have to take into account the fact that laws could be used by the "wrong" people in the "wrong" way.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    > You have to take into account the fact that laws could be used by the "wrong" people in the "wrong" way. That's why there's various rights to have a trial with a jury of your peers - ideally it can prevent the worst abuses of unfair laws.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - arp242 1y ago
    The thing is that the current US government is just ignoring laws and even judicial rulings. So looking at all of this mess I have exactly the opposite feeling: it's fine to have some reasonable laws restricting the excesses of free speech, because when the shit hits the fan the laws don't really matter anyway. What exactly "reasonable laws" and "excesses of free speech" are is not an easy topic in itself and lots of reasonable trade-offs here, but I would start with threats of violence. This includes not just "I will punch you in the face" which is already illegal in the US, but also general statements encouraging violence which are typically not. For example "Hitler did nothing wrong, we need to clear the lands of Jews", "the NYT building should be bombed with all the journalists still in it", (Ann Coulter on several occasions), or celebrating the deaths of gay people (Rush Limbaugh). "Haha, only serious"? There is a very direct and straight line between all of this and Trump, and I don't think we would have had Trump today if it wasn't from four decades of non-stop high-aggression vitriol stuff from people like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. etc. If you want to have a free "marketplace of ideas" then you need to have some sort of baseline. This baseline doesn't need to be very high, but I would say that "I encourage your murder and everyone like you" is below it.

by 0dayz 1y ago

mrandish 1y ago

> hate speech laws are usually only used in "majority against the minority" Indeed, history is full of examples of speech laws being used by those in power to silence those not in power, from war protestors (WW1 to Vietnam) to civil rights protestors. The U.S. courts didn't start out with the current expansive interpretation of free speech. Initially they tried various ways of stopping only the "bad speech" while permitting the "good speech. Over decades of trial and error, the U.S. courts saw how it always ended in abuse of the powerless by the powerful and eventually realized the only long-term solution is expansive free speech rights for all. Personally, I think the U.S. legal system eventually managed to get free speech rights into a very good balance. While I find the first amendment protected speech of some of my fellow Americans to be reprehensible and disgusting, I'll defend their right to speak because the alternative of granting the government the power to punish words instead of actions is far scarier.

Anonbrit 1y ago
The USA jailed a student for 45 days for worrying an op-ed suggesting that the situation with Gaza was plausibly genocide. The president of the USA punished a bunch of law firms for defending clients. It doesn't have free speech laws, it has a collective delusion.
- mrandish 1y ago
  > It doesn't have free speech laws While I agree the current US administration is exercising the executive branch's discretionary power in novel and aggressive ways I certainly don't approve of, the student examples I'm aware of involve leveraging existing immigration laws where the student is on a conditional visa which can be revoked on subjective grounds which amount to little more than 'being undesirable'. The relevant immigration laws aren't new and haven't changed. The only difference is they are now being enforced in cases where they previously weren't. While some of these have clearly been examples of selective enforcement based on the student's behavior including speech, the administration is resorting to non-speech immigration laws because they can't punish the student's speech directly. In fact, there were many more students protesting alongside those deported who the administration has been unable to touch because they are citizens or legal residents. Despite the regrettable outcome for these students, this is evidence the first amendment is not only strong but remains an almost untouchable 'third rail' in both U.S. law and U.S. politics. The issues around various Washington law and lobbying firms which I know of aren't speech related, they're just a new tactic in typical partisan warfare. That warfare itself isn't new. Every time the administration changes parties the fortunes of 'the other side's' law and lobbying firms change through losing discretionary contracts, clearances and approvals. We normally just don't hear about it. This is especially true when Congress is controlled by the same party as the White House (which tends to happen every 8 to 12 years and last for two years). So, I agree with you in strongly disapproving of these new tactics and aggressive partisan gamesmanship, especially because now that the Republicans have introduced these new tactics, history shows the Democrats will use them in retaliation when they regain power. My point was specific. The US courts have done a good job balancing the interpretation of the first amendment (although it took over a hundred years of correcting early bad rulings), which I still believe is true. However, I didn't say that about other areas of U.S. law which still need improvement. Notably selective enforcement and executive branch discretionary authority. The silver lining to the current dark cloud is now that the current admin has 'weaponized' these discretionary powers it's already triggered a large number of legal challenges, so the courts will have the opportunity to tighten interpretations of current laws. In cases where current laws don't address these issues, it will be up to future Congresses to create or amend laws. Personally, I think both of these areas could benefit from new legislation - especially selective enforcement. Current U.S. law has some restrictions on selective enforcement but it's limited to certain domains. I'm in favor of making enforcement of most laws and regulations a 'use it or lose it' proposition for government. If they chose to not enforce it before, they can't suddenly start to enforce it now. Obviously, that's a pretty radical approach and would have a lot of interesting consequences but I think it would be net positive. For one, it would almost certainly result in unenforced laws being effectively repealed (and we have a lot of those, especially on the state level). But I think the most valuable aspect would be forcing administrators and courts to decide which laws we actually need and to more precisely define policies for enforcing them instead of relying on ad hoc subjective judgements of bureaucrats and politicians. Back on the OP topic of 'hate speech' laws in the EU, the current shit show in the U.S. should be a huge wake up call to EU citizens that it's a very bad idea to grant government the power to punish speech instead of just actions. I believe representative democracy is the best political system but worry not enough people understand that in a democracy, when choosing how much power to give to the government, it's crucial to realize people you don't like will sometimes be in power and they'll abuse the power you granted government back when people you liked were in control. What's happening now in the U.S. is a hard reminder of this eternal truth. I believe Trump's actions will lead to all U.S. presidents having less discretionary power in the future - and that's a good thing.
- int_19h 1y ago
  > The USA jailed a student for 45 days for worrying an op-ed suggesting that the situation with Gaza was plausibly genocide. ... by abusing the fact that the student in question is not a citizen, thereby working around that whole pesky First Amendment thing. If anything, this goes to show what would happen to everyone if they could do that. And the obvious takeaway from it is that First Amendment should apply in full to immigrants, including obvious retaliation through unrelated immigration regulations.
  - slt2021 1y ago
    the student is a permanent resident and paying taxes just as citizens. if the first amendment doesnt apply to permanent residents, then all other laws shouldnt apply either, meaning foreigners should be exempt of all taxes?

bestouff 1y ago

[flagged]

throw0101d 1y ago
> I think the USA is a textbook example […] I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my main concern is that once you have certain laws you can never be sure how they'll be used in the future—see perhaps current situation in 2025. You have to take into account the fact that laws could be used by the "wrong" people in the "wrong" way.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > You have to take into account the fact that laws could be used by the "wrong" people in the "wrong" way. That's why there's various rights to have a trial with a jury of your peers - ideally it can prevent the worst abuses of unfair laws.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- arp242 1y ago
  The thing is that the current US government is just ignoring laws and even judicial rulings. So looking at all of this mess I have exactly the opposite feeling: it's fine to have some reasonable laws restricting the excesses of free speech, because when the shit hits the fan the laws don't really matter anyway. What exactly "reasonable laws" and "excesses of free speech" are is not an easy topic in itself and lots of reasonable trade-offs here, but I would start with threats of violence. This includes not just "I will punch you in the face" which is already illegal in the US, but also general statements encouraging violence which are typically not. For example "Hitler did nothing wrong, we need to clear the lands of Jews", "the NYT building should be bombed with all the journalists still in it", (Ann Coulter on several occasions), or celebrating the deaths of gay people (Rush Limbaugh). "Haha, only serious"? There is a very direct and straight line between all of this and Trump, and I don't think we would have had Trump today if it wasn't from four decades of non-stop high-aggression vitriol stuff from people like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. etc. If you want to have a free "marketplace of ideas" then you need to have some sort of baseline. This baseline doesn't need to be very high, but I would say that "I encourage your murder and everyone like you" is below it.