Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Because we have articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, and the EU does protect these rights.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

--- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

Article 10

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article 11

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Does that mean, in the EU context, that the EU (whatever EU organization that may be), or the individual EU nations can compel private companies to publish certain speech?

Are all EU citizens entitled to publish on Twitter for instance, and can the EU force Twitter to publish?

Is that the EU version of freedom of expression and information?

Very good question.

It has been tested in court before and the test failed

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hans-bu...

> The Court first acknowledged that Mr Nix’s conviction for having displayed a picture of Himmler with a swastika armband in his blog post amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. Then, it went on to analyse whether this interference was prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society. On the first two parts of this test, the Court noted that Mr. Nix’s conviction had a legal basis (Article 86a of the Criminal Code) and that it pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder.

> The Court went on to say that, “[i]n the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis”. [para. 47] Furthermore, it considered that the “legislature’s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism must be seen against this background.”

> The Court concluded by reiterating that the historical experience of Germany was a weighty factor to be taken into account when considering cases involving Nazi symbols, and whether there exists a pressing social need for interfering with an individual’s right to freedom of expression in this context. ... Therefore, the interference was found to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and “necessary in a democratic society”.

Sounds like wishy washy nonsense to me

Just realised that this charter contains a rule against double jeopardy:

"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."

which slightly surprised me, as the UK has allowed this for about 10 years, (I think). (I guess "finally" may be a getout.)

How are Germany's Nazi laws permitted under this framework?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com