Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiderfarmer | Hacker News Reader

No. You're confused.

There are anti-semetics hiding behind the 'free speech' banner, saying they have a right to try and convert more people to anti-semetism, and that nothing should stand in their way. It's not the other way around.

The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...

View on HN

If the government can censor free speech for the "public order" or for "morals", it isn't free speech. Those are the exact justifications tyrants have used for thousands of years to justify repression. Often they were even true: expressing yourself against a repressive or discriminatory regime can certainly be disruptive to the public order. It sounds like the ICCPR is meaningless fluff.

Okay so if I start a Youtube channel with the specific intent of convincing people they should kill your wife, it's all good?

Where do you draw the line?

I think the US's Brandenburg test is a good line. It is much narrower than some nebulous concept of the public order.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

As an upper bound, I would certainly draw the line at shutting down all of Youtube on because of the presence of particular offensive videos.

There is a difference between someone convincing people about killing ALL wives vs a particular one.

The first one obviously needs medication, and will be ignored. The second one - depending on the specificity of the threat - a request to take the video down or a police visit.

You say it will be ignored, but here we are after the shooting. And gab was not willing to take it down. Nor did laws help.

I love the idea of free speech to explore the space of possible ideas even against the current flow. But now we have easy filter bubbles and are missing effective mechanism pushing towards consensus. I have a hard seeing how it will not end with violence when hate speech and other surreal propaganda doesn't have consequences. But yes, we haven't found a good solution for that, yet.

The situation here in germany is even more... "funny". Gov decided to ban hate-speech, but the decision per individual case isn't up to some judge, but has to be done by the platform or face fines. Yeah, so far I prefer the current US way of not doing business with assholes.

> You say it will be ignored, but here we are after the shooting. And gab was not willing to take it down. Nor did laws help.

What was the direct/specific threat that Gab refused to take down?

Are you offering the ICCPR as an example of what free speech should mean?

It has been signed by Thailand, where insulting the king is illegal; Pakistan, where blasphemy is illegal; and Israel, where boycotting the state is illegal.

The ICCPR's definition of "freedom of speech" allows almost any restriction the government desires.

If the article was worded differently, would it make any difference when there is no way of holding bad-faith regimes accountable?

There are strict limits on free speech in Germany, showing it can work as intended.

If anything, it shows that free speech can be abused by bigots on both sides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com