Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law.
In reality, any country can abuse it's position, but in regards the internet it doesn't really appear that it has ever happened. This is very much change for change sake without any real benefit to be seen.
>Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law.
That statement is so absurd that this can only be Poe's law in effect. Freedom of Speech is a requirement for a functioning democracy, and consequently plenty of countries have freedom of speech codified into law.
Of course different countries limit this freedom differently. In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire, or "I just got a national security letter" if there is a national security letter. In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened" or "Kill all muslims". But within reasonable bounds both countries guarantee freedom of speech.
I would recommend reading a touch about freedom of speech in the US, particularly the 'Shout Fire' thing [0]. That quote comes from a Supreme Court justice in ruling the 1st Amendment doesn't protect criticism of the draft, and is regarded as one of the worst rulings on the 1st amendment from the Supreme Court. While you're broad claims are correct, the US is the most free / least restrictive country in the world in terms of what you can say without legal repercussions (I welcome being corrected here). So much so, that I've found myself shocked at some of the things that aren't allowed in other western democracies. For example, Germany and the ban against Holocaust denial. I understand why they feel that way, I understand denial is a stupid position to take, but I just can't wrap my head around it being illegal. Looking beyond western democracies, to places that seem nice to live in, you get Singapore, as an example. No thanks.
Yeah and in North Korea I can't call Kim Jong Un a fat piece of shit, but I guess that's just a reasonable limit to North Korea's freedom of speech.
> In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened"
This is a legitimate example of why Germany does not have freedom of speech. Regardless of how verifiable the Holocaust is or how offensive it is to deny that it happened, disagreeing with the government's version of history should not be a crime in a free society.
> In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire
A fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to fire warnings.
>"Kill all muslims"
A specific incitement of violence.
> "I just got a national security letter"
I don't like that this is illegal either, but it's a far cry from making it illegal to express certain opinions. And at least there's a fair amount of disagreement within the US as to whether it should be illegal, different jurisdictions have taken either side of this issue.
How is disagreeing with history any different than disagreeing with a fact, like whether nor not a theater is on fire.
Setting aside other exceptions, like liable, the rule in AngloAmerican law concerns inciting or otherwise causing imminent harm. What constitutes imminent harm has varied widely over the course of U.S. history. Many people were sentenced by courts under the Alien & Sedition Acts, the argument being that seditious speech _might_ lead to imminent harm. The same things happened over 120 years later when people handing out anarchist and communist leaflets were regularly thrown in jail with even less pushback by society.
These days the interpretation and application of imminent harm is much narrower than it has ever been, and indisputably ahistorical. The conception of free speech that Americans enjoy today didn't exist for most of the history of the country and likely most of the history of the world.
In the context of Germany's history, it's not obvious to me (and shouldn't be obvious to anybody who gives it serious consideration) that their standard is intrinsically, objectively inferior.
I happen to disagree with it, but I don't think it's unreasonable on its face. And I'll be the first to admit that my preference for the modern, American conception is largely a function of my being an American and having internalized certain normative judgments unique to not just this country, but unique to the post-WWII political and legal context and in many respects unique to the past couple of generations.
I just watched Trumbo. The US seems to have a pretty bad track record of protecting different political opinions. Seems like you bought the government’s version of history, too.
The NPD by the way is to this day allowed in Germany, they are just not allowed to openly demand the violent parts of Nazism, because denying the Holocaust is a fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to the sanctity of life.
> Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law.
Even China has "freedom of speech" coded in their constitution. Granted, many of the countries with "free speech" in the books don't actually have it in practice, but that doesn't validate your claim.
As another interesting point, it's codified into American law that the rights outlined in the constitution (freedom of speech for example) are not granted by the laws, but a source outside them. The constitution merely recognizes those freedoms, but has no ability to grant or remove them.
This of course wouldn't stop the practical removal of said freedoms by a despotic regime, but as a philosophical point, I find it interesting, and it has mattered in court rulings in the past.
Domain seizures for what reason? Have they seized the domain of a blog site because it was critical of the government or did they seize domains that were used in criminal acts? I do agree that due process ought to always be respected however, compared to te due process track record of most other countries, the US is an angel. Any international organization where Russia, China or any non-Israeli middle eastern country has an equal vote is an organization that can't be trusted. Even Thailand puts people in jail for insulting the king. People put in jail over expressing opinions! That's just nuts.
Let China be in charge of the Internet for awhile. Or even France or Germany.
They actually go after people for their ideas -- not just their actions.
> Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law.
What?? America's freedom of speech protections are strong and admirable, but this is surely an empty claim that you are unable and unwilling to defend.
I hate this statement because it usually means the person making it doesn't know very much about free speech laws.
As another user points out, the limits placed on our free speech are all directly related to actions that can harm other people. Like yelling fire in a crowded theater. That can/will result in a stampede which will hurt or even kill other people. It isn't limiting what you're saying because it's some dislike political opinion, it's limiting what you can say so you don't kill people. There's a huge, huge difference.
and there is a huge difference between not having free speech and having "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Well, except for the fact that you're attempting to lump the U.S in with countries like Germany who have what you describe. The U.S has "more free" speech. In Germany, you can't deny the holocaust. That isn't preventing harm, it's trying to stop a political statement. I'm no holocaust denier but I feel that if someone wants to parade their ignorance, they should be allowed. It makes idiots easier to identify.
Most other countries have similar limits on free speech. The U.S limits aren't of political origins, but actual physical safety. And I think that makes a world of difference.
It also makes it easier to shift the Overton window in favour of statements like "Hitler did nothing wrong" by recruiting more "idiots" to the Holocaust-denying cause. Or more accurately, recruiting ignorant and impressionable people who probably shouldn't always be expected to know better — but who might have otherwise. This is also a kind of harm, albeit a more indirect one.
And before you reply "that's what schools are for"; what difference does it make whether a body of beliefs is government-sanctioned and taught in schools or "merely" treated as a respectable opinion in the public square? A naive kid may have their opinion swayed just as strongly, if not more, by a street cultist preacher than by an overworked, burned-out schoolteacher. Would you be okay with Scientology being taught in schools? I assume not. Would you be okay with Scientologists luring children into a camp five metres away from a school? Fifty metres? Five hundred? At what point does it stop being harmful enough to be worth prohibiting? I don't think there is any.
I would rather live in Germany than in the United States, and one of the main reasons is precisely this kind of free speech absolutism.
The U.S doesn't enforce most of its obscenity clauses. With the exception of Child pornography, etc... And if you're asking what harm does that cause, well, it harms the kid getting sexually abused. Most of the obscenity laws are related to minors. Either in the the consumption of pornography or production.
> Communism Control Act
What about it? It's irrelevant here. In fact, anything that hasn't been challenged in the supreme court is irrelevant because the supreme court is the law of the land, not local, city or state governments. Per wikipedia: "the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century." It's quite obvious which way they'd rule if it were to be challenged, as even lower courts in NY ruled against it in the 70s.
And I think that's the most important thing here; In germany, for example, you can't challenge their free speech law regarding the holocaust. It's set in stone. In the U.S, unless the supreme court has ruled on it, it is not set in stone. And the supreme court of the U.S has an incredibly good track record when it comes to defending our freedoms. Sure, it's laid a couple stinkers here and there, but 99% of the time, its ruling is favorable towards those who value freedom, liberty and independence. It's kept us from fascism and helped keep us from turning into a theocracy.
> And I think that's the most important thing here; In germany, for example, you can't challenge their free speech law regarding the holocaust. It's set in stone.
Wrong. We have the constitutional court (essentially the US supreme court equivalent) and since the holocaust denial law is not part of the constitution, but freedom of opinion is, all the same arguments you presented about the US laws works just as well for Germany.
And in my opinion our constitutional court has an even better track record of defending our freedom than the US supreme court (from the rulings I hear about on this side of the pond).
Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law.
In reality, any country can abuse it's position, but in regards the internet it doesn't really appear that it has ever happened. This is very much change for change sake without any real benefit to be seen.