Hacker News Reader

Comment by qubax | Hacker News Reader

> Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world

Not good. Most of the western world doesn't have free speech.

> it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment.

It isn't an "expansive" interpretation. It's the definition of free speech.

Your "western democracies" have the same understanding of free speech as saudi arabia, russia and china does ( aka "you are free to say things only we approve of" ). That's not free speech by any definition.

Besides, when it comes to things like free speech or human rights, one should err on the side of too much free speech or human rights rather than less.

View on HN

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions?

The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

You would not be imprisoned.

You could at least try the "fire in a crowded theater argument." Though even that isn't truly limited today.

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

Imprisonment isn't the only limiting factor in free speech. Direct or indirect financial impact works well too (e.g. you'll miss your flight because we deem your opinion suspicious and have to investigate you).

Your second concept is something that every human believes in, whether you want to accept that or not. We're selfish by nature. We choose who we like and who we don't like.

Are you referencing to the "we're better than you?" - then I have to disagree, strongly. Most people I meet can differentiate between personal preference and objective superiority. None of the people I know well enough to say would argue that the country they live in is "the best" or "number one". They like it there, but have their eyes open enough to see that other nations solve some problems better,and that there is no absolute "best country".

You won't be charged with a crime. In France you could be: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-d...

This is a non-trivial difference.

You wouldn't be charged, but you'd suffer consequences. You'd peobablt miss your flight because your opinion is considered dangerous and needs to be investigated, and maybe you even end up on one of many no-fly lists.

It's not “the definition of free speech”; the US First Amendment is merely a limited restriction on its governments, whereas ‘free speech’ more generally is a moral & epistemological principle (cf Mill).

Both the right to freedom of expression and the right to a private and family life are human rights.

You can't err on the side of both of them, so what do you do? You have to balance them, which is something that the European courts have been doing for a long time now.

Exactly. America does "1A trumps everything", while Germany does "practical concordance" where it recognizes that basic rights are in a complicated relationship affecting each other, and where courts should interpret basic rights in such a way that a global maximum is reached where all those rights retain as much of their meaning and content as possible.

I think the French do the same (and have even taken the term "practical concordance"), but I'm not really sure.

I would be _very_ surprised if there was much difference between approaches, given that they're both members of the Council of Europe (and thus the European Court of Human Rights)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com