5 ms·

Few European countries have free speech in the way the US does because their legal frameworks explicitly recognise potential harms from speech and freedoms spee

Few European countries have free speech in the way the US does because their legal frameworks explicitly recognise potential harms from speech and freedoms speech can inhibit and attempt to balance these competing freedoms. I don’t think that makes us ‘not a free speech state’ — although the suppression of the IRA spokesmen was weird and criticised at the time. Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media…

cess11 1y ago
War correspondent Jeremy Scahill of Blackwater and Dirty Wars fame has been doing interviews with and reporting on communiqués from both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad for quite some time now. I wouldn't be surprised if being able to do this was part of the reason he and Ryan Grim bailed from the Intercept. https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/islamic-jihad-hamas-gaza-trump-middle-east-israel-ceasefire-saudi-humanitarian-aid https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/islamic-jihad-hamas-gaza-trum... https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/osama-hamdan-hamas-interview-podcast-gaza-israel https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/osama-hamdan-hamas-interview-...
bhawks 1y ago
|Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media. I must have missed the news where Hamas or Islamic Jihad had established themselves in the US for decades and had been able to get serious electoral candidates into the federal government. I am not seeing the parallel here between US policies on foreign based Islamic extremist groups and the UKs handling of the IRA.
- bigfudge 1y ago
  The IRA were literally blowing up shopping centres around the time their speech was restricted (not banned) on national TV. Sinn Fein mps were elected because of our weird fptp system and the extreme concentration of nationalist voting blocks. I didn’t agree with banning Gerry Adam’s voice and had sympathy with the nationalist cause, but let’s not make out like these were mainstream figures. Adam’s and McGuinness were apologists for people waging war against the British state. I strongly suspect a communist group with similar aims would get short shrift in the US. Free speech is never absolute. Europe and the US have different mechanisms to protect free expression, but net they don’t end up in very different places.
wslh 1y ago
Free speech in the US is not absolute. You cannot make true threats or incite violence. For example, calling for the extermination of Democrats or Republicans would cross the line.
- shitlord 1y ago
  That would not cross the line.
  - wslh 1y ago
    Not exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled that general hateful statements can be protected, but if a politician says "Democrats/Republicans should be exterminated" in a way that sounds like a real threat or call to action, it can become incitement or a true threat. So the line isn't about the words alone, it's about context and intent.
    - voidUpdate 1y ago
      Does that also extend to things like calling for your followers to invade the white house?
      - parineum 1y ago
        The thing that didn't happen that you are alluding to would, in fact, not, even if it had happened, be restricted speech.
    - jack_h 1y ago
      The standard as decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio is "imminent lawless action". You're correct that context matters; the speech must be tied to an imminent violation of law. This is a very high bar and in practice is very hard to reach.
      - dmix 1y ago
        Yes the US laws aren't prosecuting speech in isolation, it's always involves some sort of IRL plan to do something illegal. Just like criminal conspiracy laws, they aren't just about telling someone you plan to commit a crime but actually taking earnest steps towards a crime with another party.
grobibi 1y ago
https://www.today.com/video/leader-of-islamic-jihad-militant-group-has-message-for-us-60241477552 https://www.today.com/video/leader-of-islamic-jihad-militant...
dmix 1y ago
That is a good definition of not having free speech. If it can be whittled away every year at the stroke of a pen by a single parliamentary body (without judicial oversight) it's not really a right, it was just a temporary policy like taxing some new product.
- hiatus 1y ago
  What is an example of any right we have that can't be whittled away at the stroke of a pen?
  - dmix 1y ago
    Well the original US system is (so far) the best designed system for protecting from that sort of thing. It has multiple layers of checks via separation of powers, which is the greatest contrast to UK system where courts can't overrule parliament. The courts in the US closely protect the constitutional rights like free speech and are always shutting down new laws. Constitutional amendments are also an extremely high bar (2/3rds in congress + 2/3rds of state legislators), so much so that they never even try them anymore. So adding a hate speech amendment or "sending offensive messages" law, like the UK did via parliament, would basically be DOA in the US. But of course all rights can hypothetically be taken away in any human system, if there's enough public support or obedience.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Also see i.e. the bundies who used guns to prevent the government from taking away the private ranching rights that had been homesteaded and passed down prior to the them being nationalized by the BLM. The 'pen' says they are not allowed to keep grazing their cattle there in Clark county, yet they still are to this day.
    - jajuuka 1y ago
      The past decade kinda proves this to not be the case though. I think you're conflating constitutional amendments with laws as well to make a point when it's simply a bad comparison. It's like comparing the UK prime minister to a mayor.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
I'm not looking this up at work, but didn't OBL have a mainstream media interview in the 90s? Also, nearly every enemy of the US is on Twitter under their official names.
- diggan 1y ago
  > Also, nearly every enemy of the US is on Twitter under their official names. I'm not sure how fair argument that is. When you're literally the owner of the platform, of course you'd use your real name and the names of the companies you own, on the platform you just bought. Doing anything else would be weird :)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - wowfunnyguy 1y ago
    [flagged]
Aurornis 1y ago
> Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media… You can find clips of their spokespeople all over the news. There are no restrictions on accessing or viewing it here. It’s weird to read people from other countries whose views of free speech have shifted so much that they can’t imagine a country where news outlets are allowed to broadcast things like this if they want.
red-iron-pine 1y ago
> Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media… clips can be easily and readily found on most social media sites like youtube. the really scary ones generally are only in arabic with arabic names and titles, so the english-only gringo demographic aren't going to see them
- bigfudge 1y ago
  If social media existed then, no doubt Sinn Fein would be on there. The restrictions were only on the voice— not the words— of people like Adams on national TV channels. I really don’t think the UK treatment 40 years ago is that unusual and definitely doesn’t speak to the relative freedom of speech in US vs UK
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

cess11 1y ago

War correspondent Jeremy Scahill of Blackwater and Dirty Wars fame has been doing interviews with and reporting on communiqués from both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad for quite some time now. I wouldn't be surprised if being able to do this was part of the reason he and Ryan Grim bailed from the Intercept. https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/islamic-jihad-hamas-gaza-trump-middle-east-israel-ceasefire-saudi-humanitarian-aid https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/islamic-jihad-hamas-gaza-trum... https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/osama-hamdan-hamas-interview-podcast-gaza-israel https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/osama-hamdan-hamas-interview-...

bhawks 1y ago

|Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media. I must have missed the news where Hamas or Islamic Jihad had established themselves in the US for decades and had been able to get serious electoral candidates into the federal government. I am not seeing the parallel here between US policies on foreign based Islamic extremist groups and the UKs handling of the IRA.

bigfudge 1y ago
The IRA were literally blowing up shopping centres around the time their speech was restricted (not banned) on national TV. Sinn Fein mps were elected because of our weird fptp system and the extreme concentration of nationalist voting blocks. I didn’t agree with banning Gerry Adam’s voice and had sympathy with the nationalist cause, but let’s not make out like these were mainstream figures. Adam’s and McGuinness were apologists for people waging war against the British state. I strongly suspect a communist group with similar aims would get short shrift in the US. Free speech is never absolute. Europe and the US have different mechanisms to protect free expression, but net they don’t end up in very different places.

wslh 1y ago

Free speech in the US is not absolute. You cannot make true threats or incite violence. For example, calling for the extermination of Democrats or Republicans would cross the line.

shitlord 1y ago
That would not cross the line.
- wslh 1y ago
  Not exactly. The Supreme Court has ruled that general hateful statements can be protected, but if a politician says "Democrats/Republicans should be exterminated" in a way that sounds like a real threat or call to action, it can become incitement or a true threat. So the line isn't about the words alone, it's about context and intent.
  - voidUpdate 1y ago
    Does that also extend to things like calling for your followers to invade the white house?
    - parineum 1y ago
      The thing that didn't happen that you are alluding to would, in fact, not, even if it had happened, be restricted speech.
  - jack_h 1y ago
    The standard as decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio is "imminent lawless action". You're correct that context matters; the speech must be tied to an imminent violation of law. This is a very high bar and in practice is very hard to reach.
    - dmix 1y ago
      Yes the US laws aren't prosecuting speech in isolation, it's always involves some sort of IRL plan to do something illegal. Just like criminal conspiracy laws, they aren't just about telling someone you plan to commit a crime but actually taking earnest steps towards a crime with another party.

grobibi 1y ago

https://www.today.com/video/leader-of-islamic-jihad-militant-group-has-message-for-us-60241477552 https://www.today.com/video/leader-of-islamic-jihad-militant...

dmix 1y ago

That is a good definition of not having free speech. If it can be whittled away every year at the stroke of a pen by a single parliamentary body (without judicial oversight) it's not really a right, it was just a temporary policy like taxing some new product.

hiatus 1y ago
What is an example of any right we have that can't be whittled away at the stroke of a pen?
- dmix 1y ago
  Well the original US system is (so far) the best designed system for protecting from that sort of thing. It has multiple layers of checks via separation of powers, which is the greatest contrast to UK system where courts can't overrule parliament. The courts in the US closely protect the constitutional rights like free speech and are always shutting down new laws. Constitutional amendments are also an extremely high bar (2/3rds in congress + 2/3rds of state legislators), so much so that they never even try them anymore. So adding a hate speech amendment or "sending offensive messages" law, like the UK did via parliament, would basically be DOA in the US. But of course all rights can hypothetically be taken away in any human system, if there's enough public support or obedience.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Also see i.e. the bundies who used guns to prevent the government from taking away the private ranching rights that had been homesteaded and passed down prior to the them being nationalized by the BLM. The 'pen' says they are not allowed to keep grazing their cattle there in Clark county, yet they still are to this day.
  - jajuuka 1y ago
    The past decade kinda proves this to not be the case though. I think you're conflating constitutional amendments with laws as well to make a point when it's simply a bad comparison. It's like comparing the UK prime minister to a mayor.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

I'm not looking this up at work, but didn't OBL have a mainstream media interview in the 90s? Also, nearly every enemy of the US is on Twitter under their official names.

diggan 1y ago
> Also, nearly every enemy of the US is on Twitter under their official names. I'm not sure how fair argument that is. When you're literally the owner of the platform, of course you'd use your real name and the names of the companies you own, on the platform you just bought. Doing anything else would be weird :)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  [flagged]
- wowfunnyguy 1y ago
  [flagged]

Aurornis 1y ago

> Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media… You can find clips of their spokespeople all over the news. There are no restrictions on accessing or viewing it here. It’s weird to read people from other countries whose views of free speech have shifted so much that they can’t imagine a country where news outlets are allowed to broadcast things like this if they want.

red-iron-pine 1y ago

> Also worth remembering, it’s probably not possible to listen to Hamas or Islamic Jihad spokesmen on US media… clips can be easily and readily found on most social media sites like youtube. the really scary ones generally are only in arabic with arabic names and titles, so the english-only gringo demographic aren't going to see them

bigfudge 1y ago
If social media existed then, no doubt Sinn Fein would be on there. The restrictions were only on the voice— not the words— of people like Adams on national TV channels. I really don’t think the UK treatment 40 years ago is that unusual and definitely doesn’t speak to the relative freedom of speech in US vs UK

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]