Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorgemf | Hacker News Reader

Just a bit of feedback. This weekend there is a referendum in Cataluña, a province of Spain, about their independentism. This is not supported by the central government and it is consider illegal, and that is the reason the app was removed from the PlayStore, the court ordered it.

Nothing so see here unless you want to talk about politics.

EDIT: as you want to talk about politics, them you should have a bit of background. I think this is a good video (spanish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbeyN2fuz_4

View on HN

As a side note, if we are talking about politics then this comes on the heels of the Kurdish vote to pursue independence from Iraq with 92% of voters in favor (I read 72% turn out).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41440747

Both the US and Britain condemned the vote, which is morally disgusting after the Kurds and Peshmerga supported both of them in at least 2 wars (Iraq War of 2003+ & fight against IS).

It's okay when developed countries invade developing countries to "spread democracy", but when ethnic subgroups attempt to seek independence non-violently it's not?

I think you should read the US and UK words on this referendum as "saying no but nodding yes". For geopolitical reasons (see: Bosphorous straits) the US/Western Bloc can't afford to piss off Turkey. But in a vacuum I'm sure the US and Brits are perfectly fine to see a Kurdish state. The result is that the US and UK will pay lip service to being anti-secession while doing nothing to stop it on the ground.

The US (and probably UK) don't want a Kurdish state formed out of the Kurdish areas of A Iraq because because, Syria, Iran, and Iraq have been united in opposing Kurdish separatism, and even if Iraq gets okay with it, a Kurdish state encourages separatists in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, and drives Syria and, more importantly, Turkey into deeper alignment with Iran.

Ideologically, the US and UK might support the Kurds goals, but geopolitically they do not. And geopolitical, especially with the US, trumps ideals in the Middle East.

> And geopolitical, especially with the US, trumps ideals in the Middle East.

Always has, everywhere, unfortunately. See our various exploits overthrowing legitimate democracies that sided with the USSR and replacing them with bloody-handed dictators that sided with us.

I think that we've made progress. There is now a consensus that those actions were wrong, and should not be repeated.

> and should not be repeated.

Are you sure that's part of the consensus?

I like how some people are always positive and forward-looking on what they've done.

> but when ethnic subgroups attempt to seek independence non-violently it's not?

I didn't say anything, just it is against the law and the constitution (the same Catalans signed).

The big issue is that there is no an open debate for this. There is only fight without arguments. It is not clear what type of independence they are fighting for but they want to make a binding vote. And the central government doesn't want even to talk about a possible secession. They use it to gain votes in the rest of Spain (but at the same time they made negotiations with independants to change the law). This is more about corruption. The same way "spread the democracy" is more about getting local resources.

Would you say the same thing if Chinese or Venezuelan courts banned google apps that give information "considered illegal" there?

This is ridiculous. The app just gives a list of the schools to vote according to your address. Even if the referendum is "illegal" under spanish law, it is completely bananas to ban such an app.

I think that's the point of the parent poster--it's politics, not some crazy Google policy.

Google complied with the Spanish courts; complying with local laws is something Google does routinely (as does every other global corporation for that matter).

ETA: Aware that plenty of companies selectively choose what laws they follow (see Uber). Just generally their stated policy is "We comply with local laws"

This is a moral issue as well as a legal issue.

However you feel about it, it would be incredibly worrying if Google started ignoring local laws because it disagreed with them; it doesn't have any particular moral high ground from which to make such decisions.

What is the moral issue here?

From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.

You think right. I didn't make any politics statement, just Google doing what the law said.

You need a bit of feedback for this. There is a big amount of people in Cataluña that doesn't want the independence. There is people who wants a completely independence and doesn't understand the consecuences. And there is a lot of corrupted politics that wants only a partial independence to be avoid judge by the law.

I post a video in my first comment, take a look. It is nothing to be like what happens in China or Venezuela, the comparison is a non-sense.

EDIT: I forgot the people who want to use it as distraction to avoid talking about their corruption and other issues.

What a patronising comment. You describe four groups and why they are all wrong. Have you not considered that there might be people who want complete independence and _do_ understand the consequences? And that your “we know best” attitude might be feeding that?

The biggest issue is that we never had an open debate. When the first politics asked to be independent they wanted to be an associate state, so not really independent. Now politics say they want to be completely independent but at the same time they assume they will be in the European Union and Barcelona will still play in the Spanish League. So the group you are talking about is really a minority, they are different groups depends on the type of independence they have in mind. They don't fight against theirselves because the central government close any possible debate and blame all the independents the same way. (even all catalans)

Why wouldn't Barcelona continue to play in the Spanish League? Swansea (Welsh) currently play in the English Premier League (as did Cardiff City until they were relegated). Monaco play in the French league, San Marino in the Italian, there's a German team that plays in the Swiss leagues and an Austrian team that plays in the German league... Europe is a curious patchwork of teams playing in other countries...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_clubs_playing_i...

The Spanish federation doesn't allow teams from other countries to play in Spain. None teams from Andorra or Portugal play in Spain.

Apparently, one of the teams from Andorra does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Andorra

This is new for me, and drops the claims made by the federation recently.

The political video that you posted (only in spanish, and from 2015) is not very helpful, nor related to the current topic (the removal of an app from google due to the pressure of a government in a desperate crisis).

I always wanted to understand what type of independence do you want exactly. Could you give me your opinion? Between a completely independent state as if Cataluña had a cristal bubble around it and nothing can enter or leave it, and the current sittuation, how much independent Cataluña wants to be? I heard some people wants to be an associate State to Spain and others to be a completely separate state (which means things like enter again the european union)

> due to the pressure of a government

The Spanish government hasn't pressured Google. A Catalan judge has given them a court order, and they are required by law to comply, like anybody else.

Is it form 2015? I though it was from this month. Anyway it was for background of the topic.

I just realized you might be Catalan. Don't get me wrong, I think people should have the right to decide by themselves, but you have to tell them the truth of what will happen and have an open dialog. Not what we are doing now on both sides of the problem.

Comparing Cataluña with Venezuela or China is a non-sense. Although we might end up as Venezuela (lot of corruption everywhere, poor people, etc), I think we are still far from it. The law has been like this since decades, and no one did nothing to change it, even the catalans.

No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law. Spain is, and it's constitution is pretty unambiguous on the matter:

Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978

Aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime. "Just" giving a list of addresses of, say, brothels is a crime in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal.

Yes, it's bananas that the central Spanish government has this reaction, but it's a perfectly correct and legal reaction, and this is part and parcel of the idea that Google should abide by the law in the countries where it operates.

From a distance it seems that it would have been preferable to let the referendum go ahead with as little fanfare as possible, but make clear that it's outcome has no legal status whatsoever, but then again, I'm not in the hot seat, representing a national constituency that's overwhelmingly against independence.

> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law.

Wait wat? China isn't considered to be under the rule of law? Using the passive voice is a really weaselly[1] way to hide the fact that it's highly significant who the entity making the call is.

[1] I don't mean this as an insult, I mean it in the specific sense used by eg Wikipedia in their guidelines. For example, saying something like "Some people consider XYZ to be true" to give the claim false authority.

It's merely [citation needed], it's not [who?].

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/23/china-must-res...

You may want your scrutiny under the Wikipedia guidelines at the Wikipedia article itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law

I don't think it's controversial to say that China isn't a democracy, unlike Spain.

A quick check of the definition confirms that 'rule of law' doesn't actually have anything to do with democracy, at least according to Google's results.

This thread isn't talking about countries being democracies, they're talking about being under the rule of law.

> Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards

To me, this is also bananas. As well as the US equivalent (more perfect union).

It doesn't matter if it's democratic law or a monarch - refusing people the right to independence leads to oppression and revolution.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is the right of all humans to turn their backs upon their current rulers and establish for themselves a new regime.

Of course, doing so imprudently, or without adequate preparation, means that you will probably lose the war that will inevitably follow.

Perhaps Spain should not have written their Constitution such that if any part of it manages to secede, then the remainder of the nation is left without a foundation law. Seems like a bad plan.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not consider the Declaration of Independence to have the force of law. It’s merely inspirational. Quoting it is not a valid legal argument.

I imagine that Spanish courts do not recognize anything written by Americans to be legally binding, either.

What really matters is whether those considering armed rebellion have read it. They will determine whether those aforementioned judges get shoved up against the wall, or whether they will preside over the sedition trials later.

> No, because neither China or Venezuela are considered to be under the rule of law.

Considered... by who? Do their governments view themselves that way?

Spain has an independent judiciary. In China, and I guess also Venezuela although I know less about it, the judiciary is heavily influenced by the government.

Of course their governments see that as the way it should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_law#Rule_of_law : > Despite the newly elevated role of courts in Chinese society, there still remains some consensus about defects in China's legal system in regards to progressing towards the rule of law.

I have never read anything similar about Spain.

I don't really see why you must have an independent judiciary to have rule of law. It's obviously good, but as far as I'm aware, rule of law is merely about the fact that the law applies to everyone. I don't think it says anything about how a court system (if it even needs to exist) should function? In an extreme case, if your Supreme Court was completely independent (i.e. no impeachment risk, which we don't have in the US) but had only 1 justice on it, then he would essentially be the dictator, since he could interpret any law to mean anything, and his decision would need to stand.

>Spain has an independent judiciary.

http://en.administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/espanaAdmon/comoSeO...

>Parliament approves the budget of the judiciary.

"Independent" is a strong word here.

The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison.

All western democracies have the executive branch influence the judiciary in more or less degree. But it's a huge jump from that to single-party systems like China or, de facto, Venezuela.

> The judiciary in Spain sentenced a Ministro del Interior (the 2nd most powerful political position after President) to 10 years in prison.

And now, please inform us of how long this murderer actually served, just for the laugh. Was it 1 year? 6 months? 3 months?

And for even more laugh, just tell us how his sentence vanished, thanks to... the government's pardon.

Your example is going against your point!

Most if not all western democracies give the Government the power to pardon convicts. It's one of the checks the three branches have against each other. I, along with the vast majority of Spaniards, agree that it's been abused and should be restricted.

But if your argument is that the courts in all these countries are puppets of their governments based on the fact that they have the power to pardon later on, I don't think it's a strong argument.

As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt. The corruption in these countries and the actions they take which are based on decrees and fiat, rather than actions carried out equally and fairly according to defined law, have been widely documented.

> As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt.

You really don't seem to be willing to consider that two reasonable people can have differing opinions about the same situation. Who appoints these "reasonable outside observers"? And who defines who or what is "corrupt"? It all just boils down to what you yourself view as corrupt or reasonable.

I like to think of myself as both reasonable and not corrupt. I can't see how being obliged to give up your right to secede because a document you didn't write, sign, or agree to, says you give up that right is any different than the decree of a dictator.

You're frankly not a reasonable source of opinion on the rule of law if you don't consider laws you didn't write, sign or agree to, legal.

Also, if Spain is like most countries (but I really don't know this for a fact), but elected representatives will have signed or sworn or something similar to uphold the constitution.

I asked how a law you have nothing to do with is different from a dictator's decree. You have no say in either of them.

I think the legitimacy difference has to do with inalienable rights. People have a right to representation in their own governance. That's what the dictator gets wrong. People also have a right to liberty - i.e. To not be slaves. A "law" that says you can't ever secede is making people slaves by taking away their right to withdraw from the political union they're a part of.

The argument above is that it's legal because it's written down. What I hoped to call attention to is that simply writing something down and calling it a law isn't necessarily better than what a dictator does.

>As considered by reasonable outside observers which are not corrupt.

So...people's personal opinions then?

There is a difference between illegal and unconstitutional. Do you see any penalty associated with that section?

Constitutional law set limits on the state, and defines minimum rights of a person and applies to the state.

A crime is breaking a criminal law, which applies to people and has defined penalties associated with it.

Ok, so 'crime' is incorrect terminology, that's fair. But let's substitute 'illegal activity', and does anything in the argument change?

This is the point where I would say, 'i don't care, let's talk about it'.

Perfectly correct for them? Okay, cool. Also perfectly correct for the rest of the world to discuss... On freely accessable platforms...

Look I'm not blaming you mseebach, and thank you for the insightful information, but from an outside point of view. 'I don't care' what the Constitution says.

I can't do pretty much anything frm where I am, but I'll certainly pay attention to censorship for profit. It may not be useful, but perhaps one day it will.

As for you personally, stay safe mate, be careful. I hope everything goes well for your country:-)

Edit:big thumbs :--

It's perfectly correct and legal to discuss it within Spain too. (And it's been discussed non-stop for years).

The app ban is a court in Catalonia preventing some public servants to keep using their positions and public funds to go on with an act that's been deemed illegal.

Would it be acceptable for private citizens with private funds to organize a referendum then?

Three years ago there was a “poll” that was organised nominally by non-gubernamental organisations. Turnout was small and control on who voted or how many times was also not great. It was closer to a demonstration, but of course didn´t have any binding result.

More info https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_self-determination_r...

(Previous President of Catalonia and other officials have been recently convicted of using around 4 million euros in promoting and organising the event. As this is spending public money is something not oficially approved in the budget, it’s ilegal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/former-ca... 0

I guess it depends on what do you mean by “referendum”. Private citizens could also organize with private funds a US presidential election, but the winner wouldn’t become POTUS...

Pretty much. What kind of law could possibly prevent that?

Practically speaking, a privately organized referendum would need access to census data, and wouldn't have binding implications.

>Yes, it's bananas that the central Spanish government has this reaction, but it's a perfectly correct and legal reaction, and this is part and parcel of the idea that Google should abide by the law in the countries where it operates.

No. "Perfectly correct" and "legal" are two completely different things.

But it's a vote. Secession can be illegal in a democracy, but not voting.

Google would be right to let Spain threaten to ban them from the country.

Voting to take an illegal action is not legal or morally correct, according to common Western concepts of natural rights. Secession is an act of last resort after all other reasonable measures to resolve a conflict have been exhausted.

Let's leave the current issue aside and speak to your general statement - that voting for an illegal action is typically considered immmoral.

Do you mean to say this is basically universal?

I'm American. I would not expect many people here to say holding a vote can be a crime. Many people would say that secession itself may be a crime even if it was voted for (while others would say the vote establishes the right to secede).

But they would say holding a vote is a right that should be protected by killing the people trying to prevent the vote from happening, if necessary.

A particular election can be illegal in a democracy, a government can certainly be democratic and prohibit subordinate governments or agencies from holding elections on matters that are reserved to the central government.

This may be undesirable (and, where the election is non-binding or only binding on the entity holding it, perhaps illiberal), but not inconsistent with democracy.

Wild guess: the Catalonian government had that idea and challenged the view of the courts that the vote is illegal.

They say the vote is binding, so if they get more than 50% they will start the secession.

That's cool and all, but you still aren't carrying out the secession by voting for it.

They do have an action plan and they tried before and people was put in jail because of this. It is a vote for secession organized unilaterally by some Catalans.

You want to separate from the rest of the country, them make an open dialog, explain what exactly do you want, negotiate with the central government and ask to the population. Not what they are doing right now. I find it very stupid (for both sides, because it is the others side faults too)

I honestly don't understand how can one be at the same time afraid that a vote is won by a majority (possibly involving a quorum as many referendums do) and at the same time point out that it's organized by a minority.

Clearly the definition of who should decide these matters is crucial: at one side some people believe that it's a local matter: Catalans should chose. In the other hand, others think that that since this affects the rest of Spain, all Spaniards should have a say.

Only in this context is clear how a (possible) majority of Catalans can still be considered a minority in a broader scope.

The issue of sovereignty is central but somewhat arbitrary if you think: imagine that before/during the brexit referendum the rest of the European population (or at least Brits living abroad, ehm) were asked if Britain was allowed to leave. After all, it was something that in a way or another could have affected them, right?

But no, it's "obviously" not the same, because "countries" and the illusion of well defined borders between ethnicities and political entities. We grown so used to it, but one should not forget how this bond has been applied through force and coercion.

I think the problem is that the binding referendum is not about the independence of the Catalans, but it is more related to the politic corruption and fights among politics. Otherwise there would have been an open debate in the whole country, but a lot of politics stopped it to happen (in both sides).

Should one country be able to force Google to stop offering an app for all countries?

Obviously not, but that's not what happened here. The app is still available in other countries: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cat.onvotar1oc...

I think in many first-world nations, distributing info intended to enable others to commit a crime is, itself, a crime. (Which is not to suggest I agree with the state's legal ruling here.)

Edit: but of course the referendum itself being illegal does not necessarily imply that voting in it, is illegal. And it seems more reasonable that the state could determine the results of the referendum to be non-binding per their constitution, rather than being justified in preventing it from taking place.

OK, but voting in this referendum, even under current spanish law, is not actually commiting any crime.

You're probably right, but I think Google could make an argument that any app which is even adjacent to "illegal activity" may be a violation of their ToS, regardless of the app's actual legal status. And there's much less argument to be made here for Google's obligation to tolerate this use-case because their store does not operate as a monopoly on the platform like Apple's does.

Multiple backpage (a popular escort site) apps are currently in the store so that can't be the reason.

As of Backpage v Dart, the activities on Backpage are presumptively lawful. This isn't to say that every action that occurs on Backpage is above board (just as not every transaction on Facebook is).

That said, the case was premised on a Sheriff making it his mission to shut them down, so it's probably worth finding out what Google did during that time.

Google aren't making arguments as to what is legal or not, a Spanish court is.

This isn't just about politics. True general purpose computing (i.e. free from the walled gardens of Google and Apple) wouldn't be able to block something like this; irrespective of what you think of the politics. We've taken the path where governments can decide what programs we can and can't run on our devices.

I guess if it were a PC program, the judge would need to order to the sites that host it to stop distributing it in Spain?

Which would mean any overseas sites wouldn't care as they'd be outside their jurisdiction, or Spain would need to implement a Great Firewall like China.

Or the ISPs would be told to block the site. Not really sure how it's usually done for websites in general.

Actually I'd argue that it's more important because the government doesn't support it.

Unless there was a rule stating it was illegal to take a census before this existed, shouldn't that be a huge red flag for taking this down?

"Actually I'd argue that it's more important because the government doesn't support it."

A considerable number of Catalans don't support it either.

When you have an 'unofficial referendum' - likely to be boycotted or ignored by those not support of it - you can possibly arrive at a situation wherein the 'majority of votes cast' opted for independence, but wherein this is not remotely an accurate reflection of the actual populations wishes.

In politics, there's no such thing as 'a referendum that has no legal binding' - the results of the referendum, however inaccurate, will be used by political activists the world over as 'claims of legitimacy'.

Either there is a clear, unambiguous, clearly worded, properly managed referendum (with some kind of legal status i.e. 'not binidng' or 'binding' or whatever) - or there is nothing.

De-facto partisan-managed referendums are not good.

"A considerable number of Catalans don't support it either."

So what? Just ignore it then.

As for the majority of votes, just tally them vs total population. Simple.

But now that it's blocked, they have put it in the spotlight.

"Either there is a clear, unambiguous, clearly worded, properly managed referendum (with some kind of legal status i.e. 'not binidng' or 'binding' or whatever) - or there is nothing."

Oh bullshit, have you ever seen any political party say anything 100% clearly, that's just raising the bar.

If it's a small minority voting, then why should they care? If it's something that may be popular... Well we're seeing where this is going now, arnt we.

"So what? Just ignore it then."

+ If a considerable number of people ignore a referendum it loses it's legitimacy.

"As for the majority of votes, just tally them vs total population. Simple."

No. Absolutely not. This is not how either elections or referendums are done.

"Oh bullshit, have you ever seen any political party say anything 100% clearly, that's just raising the bar."

I'm afraid you are dead wrong. The 'wording' of a referendum is a very important and contentious thing - otherwise it loses legitimacy and legal standing.

As for 'bullshit' - there is actually a law in Canada, called the 'Clarity Act' that legally requires referendum questions to be clear.

This is because separatists want to soften the wording of the question 'i.e. we seek to renegotiate our status' - thereby getting the 10% or so on board who really don't want to separate, but want more power. Those against the referendum want a hard question like: "Do you want to separate from XYZ and loses your passport" etc..

"If it's a small minority voting, then why should they care?"

Because the political entities who directed the 'bad referendum' will use it as political capital to flame the flames.

Either it's done right - or not at all.

Ambiguous referendums are a disaster for everyone.

Without understanding the history of Spain and Cataluña it is easy to make false assumptions. I post a video in my original comment that talks about this. Take a look to it. The referendum is a big mistake and going against it it is also another big mistake. Things are being done the wrong way on both sides.

Look I understand you have a horse in this race, but how can anyone be breaking the law by stating their preference. Just because you don't agree with it, as long as there is no physical harm, or enticement to cause harm, than it shouldn't be banned.

I could stand on a hilltop and say my hairy left testicle is god and should be worshipped, that doesn't make it true(bloody hell I hope not).

My point of view that while there may be unpopular views(some for good reason), banning them doesn't fix the problem. Education and rational conversation is the key(as long as they arnt backed by voilence: see ww2 for an example of when talking doesn't work)

> how can anyone be breaking the law by stating their preference

To be clear, nobody in Spain is against the law for stating their preference, in this or any matter.

> as long as there is no physical harm, or enticement to cause harm, than it shouldn't be banned.

One could argue that wasting public funds on this does harm. But at the end of the day, if we want to change the law, we have democratic mechanisms for that.

"but how can anyone be breaking the law by stating their preference"

Because an unofficial referendum - which will not remotely reflect the actual will of the people - will still have dramatic political consequences.

Nobody is 'banning' anyone from 'signing a petition'.

In what way would a referendum where every single person (of voting age) in the region could vote would 'not remotely reflect the actual will of the people'?

This sounds like the sort of explanation a dictator would give for why a democratic vote would not tell the 'true story' of whether they really loved the dictator.

Just giving everyone the ability to vote isn't sufficient to make it a legitimate vote. You can skew the demographics in your favour by primarily promoting it in pro-independence areas (the Spanish government aren't going to lend it legitimacy by making sure everyone is aware of it). Furthermore, if you have a vote run by an unaccountable group who have a preferred outcome, what is to stop them re-running it, say, every week? Eventually the people who don't see it as legitimate will stop turning up, even if they did initially, and you will get a de facto independence majority.

FWIW, these are issues in theory with most elections. The difference is the organising party (i.e. the government) can be held to account (if voted out, they can't re-run the vote), and an official vote will have groups from all sides rallying around it so the demographics can't be skewed as easily.

Yes, referendums aren't held in a vacuum, the wealthy, powerful, and the government can use their resources to influence the result.

This happened in the UK with Brexit. The government opposed it, the bank of England, all the major institutions opposed it, the government spent millions on propaganda leaflets, and so on. It was unthinkable that the Brexiteers could win, and yet against all odds they did.

In this situation of course the scales are tipped similarly - while the regional government may want to spend on influencing the election, the financial firepower of the national government (who oppose independence) totally outstrips them, so if the referendum would be unfair it would be because it would disproportionately be tipped against independence.

It's not a perfect system - but a referendum is the best system available for answering these questions.

"In what way would a referendum where every single person (of voting age) in the region could vote would 'not remotely reflect the actual will of the people'?"

---> Because if it's not official, most people wont't vote.

It's laying saying 'why doesn't an online poll reflect the will of the people'.

It has to be done properly - or not at all.

I for one, think they should probably have it.

It isn't official in the sense that the Spanish government has acted to declare it unofficial in various ways. That doesn't make it unofficial or mean that most people won't vote (if that were really the case the Spanish government wouldn't be using force and arresting lots of people to do whatever they can to prevent it).

In terms of legality according to the UN (as I have linked for you above) it is the national Spanish government who are acting illegally here because they are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians, which supersede and regional or national laws / constitutions. Spain has a moral and international legal obligation to not oppose the referendum.

The UN has no jurisdiction.

The EU, which actually has jurisdiction, is basically siding with Madrid, they will only recognize it if it's legally sanctioned by Madrid.

As for the local Catalan 'law' - it can be superseded by the National Courts. Catalonia does not have 'treaties' with the rest of Spain - there are actual laws.

If it's declared illegal - it's invalid. The police are shutting down dozens of voting centres, there's no way to know in the end the degree to which it's 'valid' ergo, it's not.

There is either a clear and legal referendum, or none.

The Catalonians should have had a referendum that was within constitutional boundaries.

What they should have done was worded the question so that it was legal, like 'do you want to attempt to renegotiate our status with Madrid' - or something like that.

The whole point of fundamental rights is that they are fundamental! Wikipedia: 'They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal'

So they apply to the Catalonians in the same way that they apply to the people of North Korea, they are applicable to the Catalonians even if Spain specifically had a law saying they aren't. Of course Spain is a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to all of the UN human rights laws. So you are quite wrong that fundamental human rights do not apply in Catalonia. These laws enshrined in international treates are 'actual laws' as you put it - and they're serious, far more important and serious than any laws the Spanish government might otherwise pass.

This is all a discussion about what is 'legal', and while you can argue that the referendum is illegal and I can counter that making it illegal is in of itself illegal, this kind of misses the point. If Kim Jong-un passes a law stating it is legal to commit genocide within his borders a defender of his could argue that the killing is 'legal', but what good is it to know that? We know that the right to life is fundamental in the same way that the right to self determination is fundamental - violating either of them are morally abhorrent abominations which must be opposed by any right thinking person.

So we know for certain that Spains actions violate international law, and that their actions and those who defend them are morally abhorrent -- does this invalidate the referendum? You want to argue that the validity of the election is binary, but obviously that is ridiculous. When dictators shut down voting stations or kill voters that doesn't invalidate the entire election. Yes it makes it more difficult to know what would have happened had they not illegally and immorally violated people's fundamental human rights, but it doesn't make it impossible.

In fact if you think about it in many ways it makes the outcome easier to interpret. After all, the overriding reason why any political body acts to suppress the electorate's ability to vote is because they fear the outcome will go against them. When Spain busses in thousands of police to arrest people and occupy schools to prevent a referendum it is obvious that they fear if they don't do that the electorate will be heard and they will lose.

I watch this with quiet fascination - I am not Spanish (or Catalonian), I have no horse in this game. I'm English, and we had a similar situation play out over here, the Scottish people wanted to become independent. Like with the Spanish situation under our national law we had 'no obligation' to allow such a referendum, but I guess the British government have a different approach to our moral and international law obligations, and so the UK government granted the Scottish government permission to have a referendum. The Scots voted to remain in the UK, which I'm very glad about.

For those of us looking at Spain from the outside the actions of the Spanish government look pretty abominable, and the arguments deployed by their supporters in suppressing the Catalonian people are pretty horrifying. I see you energetically defending the Spanish actions on HN and I wonder whether you realise what your words and arguments sound like to someone on the outside who is not a 'true believer' in suppressing the Catalonians.

I'm sorry but vague UN declarations are again, totally not relevant in this case - either legally, pragmatically, or even morally.

They have zero authority on this.

" and the arguments deployed by their supporters in suppressing the Catalonian people"

Really, because ballpark 1/2 of Catalonians wouldn't agree with that at all.

You actually have to demonstrate why you think the international UN law defining fundamental human rights which Spain is a signatory to is 'not relevant' and that the UN has 'zero authority' on interpreting when the UN laws defining human rights have been violated.

Also - by stating that 1/2 Catalonians wouldn't agree you are giving away that 1/2 would. That's the point. If you are suppressing the fundamental human rights of 1 person you're violating them, and you admit they are violating about 3.5 million people's rights.

People who think the whole thing is a travesty (an illegal vote to discuss an illegal subject) are not going to vote, is easy to predict that the “yes” is going to win.

Baloney.

People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave.

Again, this is the sort of argument used by anti-democratic regimes to discredit referendums and elections. "Oh of course Yes won, there is a large silent majority of No voters who feel so strongly about this subject they thought it would be better not to express their vote and prevent a Yes landslide" (said no serious person ever)

"Baloney. People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave. "

No, this has already happened in other referendums, people 'boycott it' or don't vote.

Why would anyone but 'supporters' even vote in an unofficial referendum?

As it happened in Venezuela and many other places:

https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/2017/07/30/polls-open-in...

Your link is very confused. It talks of a referendum in the title but this isn't in the article.

The Consitutent Assembly wasn't brought about by referendum it was created by presidential decree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Constituent_Assembl...

The opposition did not take part in the election (not a referendum) where there is good reason to believe the result would be rigged so there was no way to vote for them. As you well know the situation in Venezuela is incomparable to the situation in Catalonia. Maduro has arrested the opposition and has totally destroyed the country.

The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.

The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”

So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, the Spanish government are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians. This is an illegal and wholly immoral act. It is not sufficient to declare that it is 'illegal' for them to attempt self determination.

"The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination."

The Spanish courts have rejected this, and the most official statements coming out of the EU by Junker, stand by Madrid's position.

Your Wikipedia quote is not relevant in this case. Both legally and pragmatically.

For example: the city of Manchester cannot separate from the UK by referendum.

The city of Montreal, as I mentioned, contemplated this during the Quebec referendum and it was squashed.

By the UN's vague definition, and 'individual' could claim that their 'home' is sovereign.

Also, legally, the UN has no jurisdiction in this affair.

But most pragmatically - the referendum is invalid because it's not being conducted properly. The state police are shutting down polling stations, urging people not to vote, indicating that 'it's invalid' therefore deterring a lot of people from voting.

There is zero legitimacy in this referendum, legally.

Popularly it will be a different thing.

You realise that it's not up to the Spanish courts to work this out right? Similarly the EU is irrelevant here. What is critical the interpretation of the UN when it comes to whether UN enshrined human rights are being violated.

We don't listen to Kim Jong-un when he or his courts declare that his citizens rights are not being violated, and neither is the interpretation of the Spanish courts very relevant.

Junker is not a UN human rights expert, he's a politician who has a history of making statements not because they are true but because they support his political aims. It's ridiculous to think that his statements have any meaningful bearing on determining whether Spain are violating international UN laws which they have signed up to. What matters is the understanding of the UN experts on those laws.

When the UN says '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies” they are saying that Spain has broken international law, laws that it is a signatory to and so has to obey.

The city of Manchester and the Catalonian people obviously have very different properties among those which are relevant to self determination as you are well aware. I know you realise this so I won't engage with your facile comparison further.

Your pragmatic argument fails for the same reason that: "Mugabe: The election is invalid because I ordered the police to go around beating up and arresting everyone who might not vote for me. Therefore the election has no legitimacy, because errr... I intentionally tried to ruin it because I was afraid of the people?"

Of course it will have legitimacy 'popularly' if you go around smashing the skulls of black people you create a situation where public support for them surges. Spain (and your) attempt to evilly suppress the Catalonians and deny them their fundamental human rights is morally evil and rightly draws support to their side (regionally and internationally).

What do you think would happen if some racist group would held a referendum in USA about restoring Jim Crow laws?

Will the majority of voters would go out to vote No? Or would they just ignore the loonies?

Could you please explain how to you 'some racist group' is equivalent to the Catalonian regional government, the democratically elected government of 7.5 million people?

Both would be having an illegal referendum.

Make it some major of a southern village, or even the whole State of Alabama, if you prefer. It would't make the question about Jim Crow laws more legitimate.

The legitimacy of 'Jim Crow laws' would be determined by how people voted - and presumably people would vote No. The 'legitimacy' of a referendum is related to who is trying to organise it - here it is the democratically elected government of 7.5 million people - that's why your initial 'some racist group' was a poor analogy.

Your analogy is totally invalid anyway. This vote is not equivalent to a call for racism, it's a call for self determination. The Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples. The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”

So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, it is the Spanish government who are acting illegally in violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians.

The political parties opposed to the “process” (who by the way got a majority of the votes in the last local elections) are telling people not to participate. With the exception of Podemos, or whatever is the name of that coalition, which doesn’t have a clear position.

Of course they are, if you think you're going to lose a referendum you can try the "if No don't vote, that way we can delegitimise the result" card. That they do so doesn't invalidate the referendum any more than it would with any other anti-democratic leader or organisation that tried to prevent the populace being able to clearly and publicly vote.

The referendum is invalid from the get-go. You said that “People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No”. Do you really think they will? Maybe you’re right and they won’t pay attention to the “anti-democratic leaders and organizations” (!) asking them not to participate...

The referendum is invalid from the get-go.

This is just a bald assertion.

Yes I do think that people who care about the results of a referendum will go out and vote because that is what people do when they care about the result.

I also believe you that some of the people opposed will not vote, but that they do this because those opposed to a democratic referendum fear the likely result will go against them does not invalidate the referendum.

First, it is against the law because the court has said so. Another topic of discussion is the law, but this is something some people want to talk about and there are way to do something like this. Some politics are open to discuss, most of them no (mostly because the use this as a distraction for other stuff).

The referendum is a big mistake because of what you said, lack of communication and not willing to talk on both sides. I think it is very stupid, you have the central government full of corruption that uses Cataluña and the independence to get votes from the nationalist and as a distraction. You have the Catalan politics that want an independence but remaining in Europe, with (economic) support from the government of Spain and only want to change a little bit the law in their interest and don't provide economic resources to the rest of Spain. And at the same time the central government used the catalonians politics to get the votes they needed at the same time given them some privileges other parts of Spain doesn't have.

"First, it is against the law because the court has said so."

.... What? If I said you couldn't talk about me slaughtering 1000 people would that be okay if I was an officer of the court. That's a stupid reason.

"there are way to do something like this" - which are being blocked!(sorry to cut off a bit, but you can read up for full quote).

"The referendum is a big mistake"...(he said more). You may be right, but who will know if they can't communicate.

At the end of the day I don't agree nor disagree with your personal politics, but silencing an opponent only gives them more power in the long run, and in the short term makes everyone wonder what is being hidden.

Edit: changed not to nor dn autocorrect

Edit2: jorgemf -sory threads too long I can't reply to you.

Look I don't 'disagree' with you per se, but I'll never agree with censorship.

It doesn't matter who agreed to what, why should any government stop it's citizens from talking about an issue.

The government is suppose to be a representive of the people, no mater what country you are in(if not, expect those same people to remove that government eventually).

They may very well be wrong, but unless it is discussed in an open forum, it will only lead to resentment and eventually bloodshed.

It has been a visible fact over human history, repressing the speech of the populace, has never worked well for the repressors.

I'll never agree with censorship.

Funny you mention that. I live here (I´m not Spanish or Catalan) and all I see is towns and cities completely plastered with variants of "Vote yes!" and not a single flyer, banner, or poster with "Vote no". There is no information, only the whipping up of the masses. Yesterday in my village there was a massive banner stating "Say hello to the Catalan Republic!".

All of this is paid for by public funds. It shouldn´t be.

There is no "organised anti-independence movement" as such. There are anti-independence political parties, but they lack the funding of the insanely massive PR campaign that is currently being waged.

Then there is the intimidation. I am a quiet neighbor, don´t bother anyone, and mostly want to get on with my life in peace. I frequently have Catalans yelling at me to get the fuck out of their country. The xenophobia here, as well as in Barcelona, is at an insane pitch. These fuckers can have their independence, and sink in the sea for all I care. I have lived in many countries over the years, and have never been in a less welcoming place.

Sorry to hear that. I don't live in Barcelona but I though there were town there more open minded as Barcelona is more multicultural. Where city do you live?

Nacionalist can be very xenofobes if you are not catalán. You ask them for something in Spanish and they reply you in Catalan.

It was the constitutional court, and there were a trial. The constitution says it is illegal, the same constitution the catalans signed years ago. They cannot do it unilaterally.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to decide by themselves. But I want politics to tell them the truth and don't use the population for their own interests. And don't use the referendum to make people hate other people as they are doing now. First tell them the type of independence you want, it is not the same to be completely independent than a associate state. I think people are fighting for the independence but for different ones. And don't use the indpendence of cataluña to put the rest of spain against them (some politics said you should vote them to avoid breaking spain, and few months later making deals with the politics of Cataluña that support the independence and giving them more privileges).

> I'll never agree with censorship.

Some politics want to open a public debate, but other don't let them (sadly)

> why should any government stop it's citizens from talking about an issue

They shouldn't, but what happens it that the use the independence to get votes. So basically a lot of Spain supports the censorship (sadly again)

> but unless it is discussed in an open forum, it will only lead to resentment and eventually bloodshed.

This is what I think is happening right now. The bloodshed is starting.

I think we agree in a lot of things. I am not against a vote for independence, I am against everything is happening around and how is everything happening. This is not the way.

rough summary for those who don't speak spanish?

First that I am getting a lot of downvotes because I don't support any side and I will get more in this comment.

It is hard to sum up everything. I am going to give you my biased opinion. We were a dictatorship 40 years ago, he died and put a king to govern Spain. The king created the democracy. We always had very different cultures (vasque country, cataluña). They got privileges during the democracy. Cataluña is an important province of Spain with strong economics (some of them because of the past privileges). They just decide as they have different language/culture they don't want to be part of spain and they want do things like they want (like any one that wants to be independent). The government (formed by people who supported or it is linked somehow to the dictatorship in the past) used the problem of Cataluña to get votes, but at the same time they make deals with the Catalans. Catalans always blame central government. The corruption is quite relevant in the country (all the country), the first Catalan politics who wanted the independence are under trials because of corruption, the same for the central government. Now, I think, some catalan politics want the independence to avoid the spanish law. The central government use the catalans to avoid talking about the corruption issues. Both sides are putting people against people. Only few people really want to have an open debate, but noone lets them. Fight is starting. We didn't even have an open debate to discuss the type of independence, like competletely independent or an associate state, but Catalans want a binding vote right now.

IndyRef didn't hammer out all the details first either. Neither did Brexit. Before the detail-hammering starts, it needs the decision that people actually want it in the first place (the referendum) otherwise it's all moot.

A two-referendum model isn't necessarily a bad idea -- if you hold the first referendum on negotiating independence, and the second on executing it. Though I suspect you'd need to make that clear before the first referendum, otherwise it'd seem like "Hmm, that wasn't the answer we wanted; perhaps if we ask you the question again..."

It having gone this far, though I could be wrong, I can't currently see denying a referendum working for anybody. Spain seems to be pursuing a kind of One Spain policy, and I doubt the Catalan populace will go along with that -- seems more likely to get their hackles up to say there's no way they could have independence even if they all wanted it.

This is worse done than Brexit. Brexit had a public debate, this didn't. For some people being independent also means to be part of the European Union, let the Barcelona FC play in the Spanish league, getting funding from the central government of Spain, no borders, etc. There is only hate in both sides that has been fed by politics during years. I am quite sure an open debate would have reach a middle point that would have make happier everybody. Catalans that don't want to be independent are also angry with the central government because they want the right to vote. Numbers were never made public but 80% of catalans want the right to vote and only 33% have stated clearly they want to be independent whatever it means. If people go to vote probably they won't be independent, but with this referendum how is being done a lot of people are not even going to care and only nacionalist will vote.

I think I will memorize and remember your comment to show that America is special and totally unique in the world. I presume you're a European, and you call it nothing special that the State forced the removal of a private form of expression.

In America every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have a first-amendment right to say whatever they want. The Supreme Court, which is totally separate from the executive and legislative branches, and has members appointed for life (who often don't end up beholden to the people who appointed them) interpret the Constitution with total independence.

While you call Spain's action "nothing to see", America is a shining beacon of free speech whose transcendent importance has not even made it to the average educated person (you) in Europe, let alone the whole of its population.

Anyone who objects to American exceptionalism would do well to reflect on the parent comment's nonchalance.

>Just a bit of feedback. This weekend there is a referendum in Cataluña, a province of Spain, about their independentism. This is not supported by the central government and it is consider illegal, and that is the reason the app was removed from the PlayStore, the court ordered it.

>Nothing so see here unless you want to talk about politics.

>EDIT: as you want to talk about politics, them you should have a bit of background. I think this is a good video (spanish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbeyN2fuz_4

In Spain every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have the right to say whatever they want.

If you honestly thought the US was unique about that, you need to travel or read more.

What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.

AFAIK, Spain doesn't have any law that guarantees the citizens are free to speak there mind without fear of censorship from the government. It does however have laws restricting speech (glorification of crimes).

The US on the other hand, included it in the first amendment of its constitution.

Much of the rest of the world does not have the guarantees on free speech that the US does (it is hard to get much freer). Germany for example restricts criticism of the state, denial of the holocaust, etc.

The US is fairly unique in preserving the freedom of speech to the degree that it does. There are others such as Poland or Norway that also make strong guarantees, but Spain is not among them.

> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.

You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence. Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.

> You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence.

Are you saying that the Spanish have the right to free speech because they claim independence? Any person can do whatever is within their power (such as speak their mind or kill somebody); the right to free speech is the assurance that the Government won't interfere (as they should with murder).

> Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.

I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate with this.

I'm just speculating with what made you think this:

> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.

because you didn't explain it.

The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.

> The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.

Which section(s) are you referring to? I couldn't find anything about interfering in concentrations claiming independence or free speech? I did find Section 71 stating that members of Congress have free speech in order to do their functions, but that implies normal people do not.

Title I, chapter 2, section 20 (page 16 in this pdf), in English: http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/... )

Hi, I'm the poster that originally objected to the lack of first-amendment protection in Spain, and the nonchalance of the other poster with regard to this fact. I just read your link and I like it. I'd like to quote it so it's part of our thread here:

>1. The following rights are recognised and protected:

> a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction.

> b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation.

> c) the right to academic freedom.

> d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever.

I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized.

The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about?

This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article):

>The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.

>It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.

It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever."

Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is.

So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.

The problem here is that a court has determined that the referendum is illegal. So helping to do an illegal act is not allowed, and preventing it is one of the exceptions of free speech. I think advertising for drug dealers in the USA also wouldn't be covered by free speech.

The other problem is using public funds for something illegal. The use of public money is very restricted in Spain. There is a body of civil servants (interventores) whose only job is approving and supervising every euro spent by any gobernment entity. If there is public spending involved in the development or promotion of this app this is a big problem.

> the force that the first amendment does in the United States

Ah, give me a break, you guys had a court order prohibiting the dissemination of a number. A number.

Which was turned by higher instances IIRC?

What do free speech have to do with a local government breaking laws? If the Catalan government proclaims next week the “independence” of their new republic (but maintaining the Spanish passports, of course), do you think the reaction from the Spanish government will also be an attack on their right to free speech?

> What do free speech have to do with a local government breaking laws?

Censorship is what it has to do with. The Spanish Government does not want the Catalan government to be able to organize people and thus has tried to remove the people's right to communicate with each other about it.

I was directly addressing the parent comment. It also addressed free speech.

> do you think the reaction from the Spanish government will also be an attack on their right to free speech?

It may be; that entirely depends on what the reaction is.

> The Spanish Government does not want the Catalan government to be able to organize people and thus has tried to remove the people's right to communicate with each other about it.

This has very little relation to the actual situation:

- The Catalan government, and anybody really, can organize people and the Central Government can't do anything about it.

- The Central Government, further, has nothing to do with the app that was banned from the Play Store. That's an order from a court in Catalonia.

- The banned app doesn't allow people to communicate with each other.

I fail to see “people communicating with each other” in this case, I’m sorry.

> In Spain every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have the right to say whatever they want.

As smug as you are, you're wrong -- Spain doesn't have freedom of speech as Americans understand that term.

For example, from Wikipedia: "justifying the Holocaust or any other genocide is an offence punishable by imprisonment in accordance with the constitution."

Your courts on the other hand prohibited people from publishing a number. A number.

Whoa. Don’t characterise the whole of Europe based on the comments of one single imperalist-minded European.

Out of curiosity, why am I a imperialist-minded European? What makes you think so?

It's just that their comment was very surprising to me. Spain is obviously completely modern in every way and a full-size EU participant: therefore, their comment (and followup, "the law is the law") reveals that this structural protection for the idea of free speech, that there is something higher than the law, isn't baked into the structure of modern European democracies via a separated judicial branch or analogous institute of checks and balances. Instead, European democracies are apparently governed by law.

If I'm mistaken, then which European country did you have in mind, which couldn't decide to do the same thing, because their respective institutions would strike down the law as unconstitutional (even if it had majority support)?

1) It is a binding referendum (this is what some catalan politics say). It is not about what they think, but about what are they going to do. The binding part is what makes this completely illegal.

2) Some people don't take is seriously because it is against the law (there is a law which they can use to do a referendum like this but it needs support from central government and an open dialog that is not happening)

3) Catalans agree with the law. The Catalan court was who said this referendum was illegal.

In any democracy you must govern by the law. The people chose the government and they make the laws. What is wrong with this? If you want a different government you vote something different, but Catalans are not doing this either. This process is not supported by some independist.

>In any democracy you must govern by the law. The people chose the government and they make the laws. What is wrong with this?

you raise a good question and the answer is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority . That's why in America even if the majority support a law limiting speech, the supreme court will still strike down such a law - the State can't cause the removal of things like this app in America, lawfully; even if it has people's support.

what is interesting is that I wouldn't have to explain this to someone else in America - it's part of what everyone already knows.

> the State can't cause the removal of things like this app in America, lawfully; even if it has people's support.

It can however cause the removal of apps that are ruled illegal by a court; the only difference is the kind of app that would be illegal. The US already has all kinds of restrictions on free speech, or somewhat speech-like actions like distributing an app. That is backed by the US constitution, just as this instance was (apparently) backed by the Spanish constitution.

What is interesting to me is a) that you think everyone in the US is intimately familiar with the implications of the first amendment and concepts like the tyranny of the majority. That doesn't seem to be the case, given the striking number of people who think they can say whatever they want without any legal repercussions. And b) that you believe your argument to be so persuasive that someone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have been aware of it.

That is why you have a constitution. This referendum is against it and that is why is against the law. You cannot claim your city as independent of the country doing a referendum among your friends. This is what is happening now in Spain (more or less)

So, I actually didn't mention anything about the referendum at all.

I was just using your example to point out that your attitude about the removal of an app means that "first-amendment" (free speech) issues aren't big in Europe. It has nothing to do with what the app (or referendum) says or doesn't say. It could be about anything. I was pointing out that you don't consider the forced removal of the app by the state to itself be a huge issue. It shows how strongly people feel about "free speech" in Europe: not at all. It's not part of the discussion or a relevant matter for you, as long as it's done lawfully.

Because how this is being done is a completely mistake. They don't respect each other and do things against the law they supported before. But don't compare it with free speech, this is not what is happening now. I want an open dialog, not this bullshit. If you do something illegal you face the consequences, as this is completely illegal they faced them. Otherwise is that they open a public debate and discuss, talk with the people, negotiate the terms, etc. They could do things right like in Ireland, but they are not doing it. And the central government instead of open a dialog is closed completely to any type of dialog. Someone tries to open a dialog and they point at them and blame them. And they got more votes because of their attitude. So fight is served because politics don't want to talk and are making the people hate the other people.

To sum up, the problem is how are they doing the things and that most population support both of them (each one their party) increasing the anger and the hate.

> If I'm mistaken, then which European country did you have in mind, which couldn't decide to do the same thing, because their respective institutions would strike down the law as unconstitutional (even if it had majority support)?

You think the government of California can pass a law of secession and that law wouldn't be stroke down?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com