Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

>mapping sites cannot record "street level" images in public view, but the government will decree what is and is not allowed speech

This isn't a contradiction unless you view everything through an American cultural lens. There is no conception of absolute freedom of speech in Germany. The public sphere in Germany is not the Wild West, never has been, never will be and has always been subject to considerations about what is in the public interest. In public you're not just an individual, you're a "Staatsbürger", a citizen of the state, and you have not only privileges but obligations to maintain public life.

Right to your data, your own body, your private communication, your own image, and so forth is part of the private sphere and personal, and as such enjoys much more protection.

View on HN

There is no absolute freedom of speech in the US, either.

I think it's worth pointing out that that's a specifically legal distinction, and one frequently ignored by, well, some parts of the US populace, some of the time.

Compared to what is allowed in germany it feels like that, though.

Really? Can you give an example, aside from Holocaust denial?

If anything, having lived in both the US and Germany, I feel more free in Germany. As an example, Google would not have been able to fire James Damore for his memo here.

The reason Google wouldn't have been able to do that has nothing to do with freedom of speech here, though. It's not at all relevant.

Actually it does, unless you think government is the only entity that can restrict speech.

The government is the only entity legally prohibited from repealing it (in the US, anyway).

But US-style FoS only applies to the government in the first place:

"Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government."

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

(Emphasis mine).

Specifically: "The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[6] prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.[7]"

So companies can restrict your speech all day long, as happened with James Damore.

"However, laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.[8]"

But that is not the 1st amendment or general FoS legislation, but specifically employment laws. And employment laws are notoriously employer-friendly and employee-hostile in the US.

The US libel laws are much more publisher-friendly - I cannot legally claim that Oury Jalloh [0] was murdered in Germany (even though he almost definitely was), whereas in the US the accused police has a higher burden in proving he wasn't.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Oury_Jalloh

Why do you say that you cannot do this?

a.) Lots of people appear to be doing it:

https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=mord%20an%20Oury%20Jalloh

What exactly do you fear the repercussions would be?

b.) Accusations of a crime presented as a fact appear to be "libel per se" in the US, so quite actionable:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+libe...

Some things you are allowed to say in US would be punished as insult or hatespeech in germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#G...

You can't deny the Holocaust or directly call for violence. That's about all I can think of. The interpretation of that isn't just done by the government, but by courts, which seem to do a pretty okay job at it. You can still express political opinions pretty unproblematically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com