3 ms·
I see, when it comes down to the jurisdiction of the US the exceptions are clear enough. I see that Charlie Hebdo would have been in a lot of legal trouble if t
by _almosnow 12y ago
I see, when it comes down to the jurisdiction of the US the exceptions are clear enough. I see that Charlie Hebdo would have been in a lot of legal trouble if they were based on the US then. I don't know why I've tought that the law would be very similar in most of the world but it isn't, or apparently in France they were allowed to stay in business (although for what I've been reading they had been fined a few times regarding issues that violate the scope of freedom of speech).
- schoen 12y agoThe U.S. legal system is known as more tolerant of offensive speech than any European jurisdiction. I'm not quite sure where you're getting the inference that such speech is less protected in the U.S. than in France.
- _almosnow 12y agoBecause they've been operating for such a long time. If it were illegal they would have shut it down already.
- cbd1984 12y ago> I see that Charlie Hebdo would have been in a lot of legal trouble if they were based on the US then. I don't. Can you explain, please? I'm honestly interested in how you think American free speech law works.
- _almosnow 12y agoWell, for what I've read in the past hour or so, apparently free speech does not apply when the subject is of an offensive matter, but to be clear I have no idea where to draw the line. Do you have any better insight?
- cbd1984 12y agoJust to consolidate our discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8854880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8854880