Hacker News Reader

Comment by Darkstryder | Hacker News Reader

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind.

It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result. We might have dialed it back a bit after that. But what do I know ?

There seems to be some a profound divide between America and Europe on this front and I haven't quite put my finger on why yet.

View on HN

I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.

Of course.

But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that).

What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe.

For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US.

Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing.

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

Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Why did you post it?

Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement.

If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it.

BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech.

Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.

The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment.

You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.

> You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.

And that has severe consequences as you see.

Popper said it many years ago.

I don’t believe that is accurate. Courts routinely issue gag orders.

The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it

The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict.

Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then there were all the surrounding circumstances of how he set this up.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha...

Prudent defense or not, no law should be written in the first place so as to criminalize a joke YouTube video under its letter. Nor should citizens (or subjects in this case) be compelled to explore the necessities of free expression as a criminal defense for making a simple joke.

Thankfully in the US we have already codified free speech into law. Unfortunately there are still many who do not consider the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be a settled issue.

Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences*

*Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".

I mean civil consequences. If someone says something I dislike, and I disassociate with them, that's a consequence. Nobody should ever be jailed for their speech and that's what it's designed to protect against.

Libel is special because it's purely a civil matter and usually has to prove malicious intentions.

I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech.

Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist charge.

Please dont do it. 1A is protecting you, but they still got guys with batons, tear gas and tazers. It is not about the letter within some law but rather how it is practised, by insulting someone strong enough, law might protect you but at the end you will still finish as a begger. And, me personally, I wouldnt dare to do it in states. Actually I would rather do it in Switzerland. Or maybe even Thailand.

I disagree. This is the very thing freedom of speech protects, bar violent incitement. The great thing about the US is that FoS is not not just a law, but also a cultural tentpole. I doubt the people holding the tazers would carry out their orders in this case.

There are a bunch of relevant passages about this in Animal Farm, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.

For example-- that famous one where the hedgehog pornography tycoon runs an add in his magazine accusing one of the pigs of having sex with his own mom, and then is cleared by a panel of pig judges who rule that parody is protected speech.

Where is that passage in Animal Farm? Maybe I don't have the details correct, but I certainly remember reading a long passage where Orwell clearly establishes that a book of satire like Animal Farm itself would be allowed in the Animal Farm universe. I thought it was such a nice touch of optimism in an otherwise dreary book. (And if I remember correctly it was a welcome respite from those long boring passages of complicated libel case law in the animal world.)

> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." > I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it

Not quite. You did not quote a critical part -- being free from consequences from the government. And as governments, almost everywhere, give themselves a monopoly on the use of force "if I say the wrong thing I get punished for it" does not apply.

Thus whoever wants to punish you needs to petition the government for help and prove their case -- if I make false claims that you consider damaging you can ask the government to help and prove your case in a civil court (instead of, say, punching me in the snout to punish me directly). Just my 2c.

You have it, but it's not pure free speech US style, everything is good because it's the constitution, like bearing arms and whatnot, you have the right to your opinions, but some opinions could lead you to jail.

Which is slightly different.

You're afraid of free speech? Manipulation occurs no matter how open or free communication is. Discourse and skepticism are the only weapons we have against Manipulation, and those exist via free speech.

There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since.

No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights. We cannot, for example, incite people to a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater, or go on the radio and accuse our boss of murdering children. The restrictions against Holocaust denial in Germany (for example) aren't different in kind. Europeans enjoy broad freedom to publish whatever they want about their government, critical or otherwise.

This is in stark contrast with China, Russia, most countries under some form of religious rule, and most dictatorships, where criticizing the government will get you tortured to death or sent to a labor camp at worst, and severely fined and blacklisted from government service at best.

The "median Western European" may have a more nuanced view on the right to free speech than the median citizen of the United States, but I'd attribute that to a superior education system and decades of trying to undo structural economic injustice rather than a cultural divide (which is complete nonsense, honestly).

Anyone absolutely can "Yell fire in a theater" in the US, this canard has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you.

You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.

The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.

Its entirely relevant. Your speech is subject to civil law, never criminal law, because speech is free. If it is somehow subject to criminal law its not really the speech that is, but some other act which the speech is facilitating.

Yelling fire in a theater isn't illegal, but deliberately doing something that will cause a panic is.

Sure it's relevant. In the context of Free Speech, we're talking about freedom from persecution by the state.

In the US, you can say whatever you like and you will not be prosecuted or jailed. That is simply not true in most other countries.

It isn't pertinent to the conversation re: europe. Also, it's false, you can be imprisoned for inciting violence (or taking other unlawful action) in the United States. Finally, there isn't a categorical distinction between having speech restricted by a suit brought in civil court vs in criminal court: in both cases my speech is curtailed by law.

I drew the obvious contrast with most of the rest of the world in the parent comment, I have nothing more to say there.

America was settled largely by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe.

> It might have to do with the last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result.

Um, I'm not sure what they put in your history books over there, but I'm certain that's not an accurate characterization of how that happened.

Free speech is not responsible for WWII at all?!

You forget that Hitler's ideas were popular at the time - that's why he was elected. Slowly but surely it was the free speech of Jews, their very ability to combat the incoming tyranny before it was to late, was clamped down on.

As such, censorship was quite popular.

Free speech levels the playing field between government and people.

I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights.

I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that.

In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.

1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech.

2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.

Your legal name is: $name

Your Address is: $address

Your phone is: #ph

You work at: $employer

You did X abhorrent thing (fakes picture or video with deepfakes). It would be a shame if something happened to you.

-------------------------------

That right there is indeed verbal violence, AND a call to arms to enact violence against you.

That right there is not an example of violence, despite any assertions to the contrary. There is a clear distinction between statements and actions.

And this is where my opinion lies.

That's just libel and an incitement to violence (though you could have rephrased the same information so it wouldn't be).

Only the incitement to violence could possibly be considered violence, though I personally would say it is NOT violence, but a separate offence.

"I'll kill your family" after they killed many other people's families is verbal violence.

Believe me, my grangrandfather and my grandfather were jailed many times in the 20 years of fascist regime because they refused to swear as fascists.

They were two gentle men who worked as tailors.

1) nope. yo could say whatever you wanted in Rome when the ruler was the pope, but you could not write it freely.

Example: Pasquino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasquino

2) I'm a polite Italian using ancient words: it's what we call hate speech today.

OT: You for sure know that the 'Duce del Fascismo' was in power as a Dictator since 1925 - and the fascists takeover state power in Kingdom of Italy in 1922, not ?

(Quoting: //wiki/Mussolini)

regards from germany (-;

Edited: Typo

> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result

We also needed Americans to save us Europeans from those other Europeans.

> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result

Aside from being really smug about Europe's supposed superiority today, this comment is just factually misleading. For one thing, it wasn't "unadulterated free speech" that got Hitler into a position of dictatorial power, it was backroom politics, legal manipulation, and finally laws and a German constitution that were extremely pliant towards misuse and reinterpretation for the sake of dictatorship, with all kinds of clauses in favor of martial law, censorship and so forth that the Nazis used to powerful effect once Hitler was appointed chancellor. Had they been dealing with something more absolutist about freedoms like the U.S constitution, his road to dictatorship would have been much more difficult, chancellor or no. You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech.

In other words: Hitler's rabidly racist speeches never once won him a single electoral victory in Germany (and this even at a time when anti-semitism and racism were much more popular). The much greater damage was done by a weak constitution ridden with clauses against individual freedom, which couldn't effectively stop Hitler from becoming a dictator once he got the chancellors office.

> You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech.

Not my claim, it was the GP's claim and I was also disagreeing with it.

I saw that and sorry. I couldn't find his original claim again and just replied to you. Cheers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com