4 ms·

> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voic

> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

throwawaythekey 1y ago
Isn't it obvious that (2) in practice entirely negates (1)? In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.
- ajuc 1y ago
  It's very hard to find a law without exceptions. It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill. It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them. It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem. Etc. Freedom of speech was never intended to be the only fundamental rule of the society. It's one of many. Being fundamentalist about it is harmful. In particular what is harmful is abusing it to circumvent other, reasonable rules. In USA the reason oligarchs can pay politicians for their campaigns is because it's classified as "free speech". This is corruption on the highest level of the state legalized with idiotic excuse. It's illegal in most democracies, and for a good reason. Another example is spreading hate campaigns against minorities. We know what happens if you allow this to go on. We've seen 1930s. We have laws against it - but only for traditional media. Internet is a way to circumvent these rules and good practices. Just like radio was a way for to-be-totalitarian-rulers to circumvent the establishment in 20s and 30s.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    I haven't seen anyone here claiming that freedom of speech is the only fundamental rule of society. It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first. What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to limit our speech in any way, YouTube can limit all it wants unless it treads into gray area where the limits were specifically requested by the government.
    - ajuc 1y ago
      > It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government. These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example of network effects and there's no regulation - so of course it's monopolized to a degree unimaginable before. Governments should break up such monopolies, obviously - but they aren't, so far.
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        If YouTube is legally a monopoly that's a separate issue that already has defined legal solutions (well, responses at least since they may not solve it). Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere. The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option. Those with the means could move to another country, but that would only dodge one problem for another. When you live in a country ruled by a single government you can't escape their censorship.
        1y ago
- ben_w 1y ago
  Even the US has such restrictions: Grand jury proceeding, classified information, contempt of court (Trump almost hit that last year), lying under oath, material nonpublic information about publicly traded companies (Musk), copyright infringement, … Is "Obscenity" still a thing? I guess some porn must be illegal… And conversely, North Korea has a constitution that says they also support free speech*. So, you know, look to de facto not just de jure. * """Article 65 provides that all North Korean citizens have equal rights.[15] Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67),""" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Chapter_5_–_Fundamental_Rights_and_Duties_of_Citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Ch...
- Y_Y 1y ago
  I wonder would it be possible to prosecute bankers under such a law. Is it strictly information, or could you consider actions which undermine faith in the banking sector?
wesselbindt 1y ago
I'm not entirely sure what your parent post is referring to, but I know the UK government has been going after anti-genocide folks to such an extent that a group of four UN rapporteurs sent them a letter about it. Details and some more context can be found here: https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-rapporteurs-the-uk-is-suppressing-free-speech-on-palestine/ https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-r...
NilMostChill 1y ago
I'm not who you were asking but i can provide a specific encroachment example. The anti-protest law update that was passed over the last few years specifically (using the law) curbs the ability to protest freely in public spaces. It's technically lawful and curbs expression from what it was previously, the same way they are doing it in general, by adding additional laws (or clauses to existing laws) that are intentionally vague so they can make it fit whatever definition they like after the fact. I'm aware that the legal system is partly based on judicial interpretation etc, but these are so much more vague than previously. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it still curbs freedoms. incidentally, i think it might have recently been overturned (or has at least been challenged successfully) but the point is , the government pulled some legal shenanigans to curb expression. another example of the vagueness would be IR35 legislation, again, not debating the pro's and cons, just saying the law is purposely vague when actual guidelines could be provided.
ZephyrBlu 1y ago
It is a massive meme that people get arrested in the UK for saying things which would be protected in the US. https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... https://archive.ph/vaCkJ https://archive.ph/vaCkJ
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
timewizard 1y ago
They also have a law against murder. So super weird that people actually get away with murder still.
fallingknife 1y ago
1. All animals are equal 2. But some animals are more equal than others
March_Hare 1y ago
You have the right to free speech As long as you're not Dumb enough to actually try it
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  The Clash - Know Your Rights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EKCAE1vDzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EKCAE1vDzY
Glittergorp 1y ago
That law has so many caveats to it that it is essentially worthless.
- touristtam 1y ago
  I respectfully disagree with this assessment. A law is not an absolute boundary, but a societal construct—established collectively and open to reinterpretation as public consensus shifts. As such, it can be enforced as written or challenged and ultimately overturned. That doesn't make it worthless as a trial can lead to a confirmation of the rules considered.
roenxi 1y ago
The issue with the sort of people who don't like freedom of expression is they often ignore the rules giving people positive rights. The Chinese constitution [0] is crystal clear that Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. Pointing to a law that says people have something is evidence, but not really the end of the conversation. [0] https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20... - Article 35

throwawaythekey 1y ago

Isn't it obvious that (2) in practice entirely negates (1)? In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.

ajuc 1y ago
It's very hard to find a law without exceptions. It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill. It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them. It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem. Etc. Freedom of speech was never intended to be the only fundamental rule of the society. It's one of many. Being fundamentalist about it is harmful. In particular what is harmful is abusing it to circumvent other, reasonable rules. In USA the reason oligarchs can pay politicians for their campaigns is because it's classified as "free speech". This is corruption on the highest level of the state legalized with idiotic excuse. It's illegal in most democracies, and for a good reason. Another example is spreading hate campaigns against minorities. We know what happens if you allow this to go on. We've seen 1930s. We have laws against it - but only for traditional media. Internet is a way to circumvent these rules and good practices. Just like radio was a way for to-be-totalitarian-rulers to circumvent the establishment in 20s and 30s.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I haven't seen anyone here claiming that freedom of speech is the only fundamental rule of society. It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first. What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to limit our speech in any way, YouTube can limit all it wants unless it treads into gray area where the limits were specifically requested by the government.
  - ajuc 1y ago
    > It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government. These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example of network effects and there's no regulation - so of course it's monopolized to a degree unimaginable before. Governments should break up such monopolies, obviously - but they aren't, so far.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      If YouTube is legally a monopoly that's a separate issue that already has defined legal solutions (well, responses at least since they may not solve it). Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere. The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option. Those with the means could move to another country, but that would only dodge one problem for another. When you live in a country ruled by a single government you can't escape their censorship.
      - 1y ago
ben_w 1y ago
Even the US has such restrictions: Grand jury proceeding, classified information, contempt of court (Trump almost hit that last year), lying under oath, material nonpublic information about publicly traded companies (Musk), copyright infringement, … Is "Obscenity" still a thing? I guess some porn must be illegal… And conversely, North Korea has a constitution that says they also support free speech*. So, you know, look to de facto not just de jure. * """Article 65 provides that all North Korean citizens have equal rights.[15] Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67),""" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Chapter_5_–_Fundamental_Rights_and_Duties_of_Citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Ch...
Y_Y 1y ago
I wonder would it be possible to prosecute bankers under such a law. Is it strictly information, or could you consider actions which undermine faith in the banking sector?

wesselbindt 1y ago

I'm not entirely sure what your parent post is referring to, but I know the UK government has been going after anti-genocide folks to such an extent that a group of four UN rapporteurs sent them a letter about it. Details and some more context can be found here: https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-rapporteurs-the-uk-is-suppressing-free-speech-on-palestine/ https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/un-special-r...

NilMostChill 1y ago

I'm not who you were asking but i can provide a specific encroachment example. The anti-protest law update that was passed over the last few years specifically (using the law) curbs the ability to protest freely in public spaces. It's technically lawful and curbs expression from what it was previously, the same way they are doing it in general, by adding additional laws (or clauses to existing laws) that are intentionally vague so they can make it fit whatever definition they like after the fact. I'm aware that the legal system is partly based on judicial interpretation etc, but these are so much more vague than previously. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it still curbs freedoms. incidentally, i think it might have recently been overturned (or has at least been challenged successfully) but the point is , the government pulled some legal shenanigans to curb expression. another example of the vagueness would be IR35 legislation, again, not debating the pro's and cons, just saying the law is purposely vague when actual guidelines could be provided.

ZephyrBlu 1y ago

It is a massive meme that people get arrested in the UK for saying things which would be protected in the US. https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... https://archive.ph/vaCkJ https://archive.ph/vaCkJ

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

timewizard 1y ago

They also have a law against murder. So super weird that people actually get away with murder still.

fallingknife 1y ago

1. All animals are equal 2. But some animals are more equal than others

March_Hare 1y ago

You have the right to free speech As long as you're not Dumb enough to actually try it

anonymousiam 1y ago
The Clash - Know Your Rights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EKCAE1vDzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EKCAE1vDzY

Glittergorp 1y ago

That law has so many caveats to it that it is essentially worthless.

touristtam 1y ago
I respectfully disagree with this assessment. A law is not an absolute boundary, but a societal construct—established collectively and open to reinterpretation as public consensus shifts. As such, it can be enforced as written or challenged and ultimately overturned. That doesn't make it worthless as a trial can lead to a confirmation of the rules considered.

roenxi 1y ago

The issue with the sort of people who don't like freedom of expression is they often ignore the rules giving people positive rights. The Chinese constitution [0] is crystal clear that Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. Pointing to a law that says people have something is evidence, but not really the end of the conversation. [0] https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20... - Article 35