3 ms·

My right to free speech allows me to say whatever I want about anybody. There is absolutely no guarantee that I be nice or understanding or that I take into acc

My right to free speech allows me to say whatever I want about anybody. There is absolutely no guarantee that I be nice or understanding or that I take into account their personal wishes. When the government tells me that people have a right to remove embarrassing content, it's actually telling me that people have a right to restrict the speech of others. The right to be forgotten and the right to free speech cannot coexist, because the implementation of one requires the override of another. You must choose one, but choosing both undermines the legal foundations of the modern democratic republic.

vidarh 12y ago
Do you believe in libel laws? Should I be allowed to publicly claim that you're a murderer unpunished? If you answer that I should not, then you support censorship. Every legal system in the world puts limits on free speech. Not just for defamation, but also generally for various degrees of incitement, etc. Because we have always accepted that some speech can cause substantial harm to people without sufficient public interest to always justify it. And this decision does not take away or infringe your ability say what you want about anybody (and you are wrong: you are not allowed to say whatever you want; depending on where you are the government is merely prevented from exercising prior restraint. The speech can still be illegal, and cause you to be punished accordingly after the fact). What it does, is prevent a certain, limited class of non-expressive publication of pointers to expressive speech in situations where the court found that the restrictions placed on Google was outweighed by the privacy rights of individuals. The decision made clear that the original speech was not affected. > You must choose one, but choosing both undermines the legal foundations of the modern democratic republic. The legal foundations of no European states grants the kind of supremacy to unlimited free speech that you seem to want. And a substantial number of these republics are younger than the US. And even the US does not have the extent of free speech you seem to advocate.
- noamyoungerm 12y ago
  Just because you are permitted to say whatever you want doesn't mean you are free from responsibility for the content of your words. Words precede action, and as such uttering words entails some share of the responsibility for the action. My meaning is, with regards to libel, that in a theoretical sense, claiming I'm a murderer would be acceptable under free speech. The reason it is problematic is that claiming I'm a murderer will cause other people to do harm to me, that is, you share in responsibility for loss on my part. As a result, libel laws allow me to level the field - it's not that you aren't allowed to call me a murderer, but rather that you are responsible for the unjust damage you caused me by doing so. That is why it's ok to call someone a murderer if they actually killed someone - the damage is not unjust. That is also why libel laws (at least in accordance with my ideology) should be entirely restricted to the civil court of law and not the criminal one. I'm aware that the model of free speech I'm advocating is in some cases unrealistic (most notably in the military intelligence community). However, the concept of absolutely free speech is something that countries should attempt to reach, and choosing to give citizens the ability to suppress speech lies in direct opposition to this. Democratic states need to provide rights to their citizens so that said rights form a minimum spanning set - internal conflict between security and privacy is why the US allowed itself to reach a state of mass NSA surveillance. I don't see why EU states should encourage a conflict between free speech and the right to be forgotten. Even though the speech people seek to suppress may cause harm to them (as with libel laws), it is unreasonable to expect a person to free themselves of accountability for their actions by blaming those who merely report on the actions. People act with the expectation that their actions will have social repercussions, and the choice of action or inaction is more powerful than the choice of speech or silence.

vidarh 12y ago

Do you believe in libel laws? Should I be allowed to publicly claim that you're a murderer unpunished? If you answer that I should not, then you support censorship. Every legal system in the world puts limits on free speech. Not just for defamation, but also generally for various degrees of incitement, etc. Because we have always accepted that some speech can cause substantial harm to people without sufficient public interest to always justify it. And this decision does not take away or infringe your ability say what you want about anybody (and you are wrong: you are not allowed to say whatever you want; depending on where you are the government is merely prevented from exercising prior restraint. The speech can still be illegal, and cause you to be punished accordingly after the fact). What it does, is prevent a certain, limited class of non-expressive publication of pointers to expressive speech in situations where the court found that the restrictions placed on Google was outweighed by the privacy rights of individuals. The decision made clear that the original speech was not affected. > You must choose one, but choosing both undermines the legal foundations of the modern democratic republic. The legal foundations of no European states grants the kind of supremacy to unlimited free speech that you seem to want. And a substantial number of these republics are younger than the US. And even the US does not have the extent of free speech you seem to advocate.

noamyoungerm 12y ago
Just because you are permitted to say whatever you want doesn't mean you are free from responsibility for the content of your words. Words precede action, and as such uttering words entails some share of the responsibility for the action. My meaning is, with regards to libel, that in a theoretical sense, claiming I'm a murderer would be acceptable under free speech. The reason it is problematic is that claiming I'm a murderer will cause other people to do harm to me, that is, you share in responsibility for loss on my part. As a result, libel laws allow me to level the field - it's not that you aren't allowed to call me a murderer, but rather that you are responsible for the unjust damage you caused me by doing so. That is why it's ok to call someone a murderer if they actually killed someone - the damage is not unjust. That is also why libel laws (at least in accordance with my ideology) should be entirely restricted to the civil court of law and not the criminal one. I'm aware that the model of free speech I'm advocating is in some cases unrealistic (most notably in the military intelligence community). However, the concept of absolutely free speech is something that countries should attempt to reach, and choosing to give citizens the ability to suppress speech lies in direct opposition to this. Democratic states need to provide rights to their citizens so that said rights form a minimum spanning set - internal conflict between security and privacy is why the US allowed itself to reach a state of mass NSA surveillance. I don't see why EU states should encourage a conflict between free speech and the right to be forgotten. Even though the speech people seek to suppress may cause harm to them (as with libel laws), it is unreasonable to expect a person to free themselves of accountability for their actions by blaming those who merely report on the actions. People act with the expectation that their actions will have social repercussions, and the choice of action or inaction is more powerful than the choice of speech or silence.