Hacker News Reader

Comment by last_responder | Hacker News Reader

So when you say free speech do you mean the kind guaranteed by the constitution?

"Free speech" is a universal concept, whereas by the "constitution" I assume you mean that of the US. A universal concept isn't limited or controlled by what one particular country's constitution (as interpreted by that country's courts) may have to say about it.

First paragraph on Wikipedia:

> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations.

So, when talking about freedom of speech most nations abide and follow the prescriptions of the international framework supplied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further ratified as members of the United Nations. I think it's safe to speak about the universal concept and the national/political concept as being the identical.

Japan has ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights and has a constitution that is heavily influenced by the US one but it doesn't protect freedom of speech in the way you think it might. From [1]:

> Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan:

> “(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.”

“regardless of whether such facts are true or false” isn't the way to protect freedom of speech in my mind, nor anyone I've ever heard supporting freedom of speech. Hence, no, it's not safe to conflate the concept and the implementation in law, and not just for this reason but because in the vast majority of cases the implementation in law does not protect freedom of speech to even the amount the US constitution does (which is still not far enough, in my opinion).

[1] https://kellywarnerlaw.com/japan-defamation-laws/

Of course, there will probably be nations that will not abide to the strict letter of the declaration of human rights. I wanted to add a caveat to my initial post, but I thought saying "most nations" would suffice. :)

If you're counter arguing my statement with "in the vast majority of cases" I would welcome some supporting evidence on your part. Which Western states have a very different definition of freedom of speech from the one in the declaration of human rights?

Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others, a clarification that can be found (again) on Wikipedia:

> The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this 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".

You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way.

I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States. There are clear violations of free speech rights in much of Europe and there is basically no protected speech in many other parts of the world. India's constitution follows the guidelines but in practice speech is heavily regulated through hate speech laws.

I'm sure there are other countries that actually take the notion of free speech seriously but I'm too ignorant about the laws of every country to know that. Most countries I can think of have glaring issues with protecting people's right to free speech.

If you equate "freedom of speech" with permission to spew "hate speech" unchecked then I'm afraid you also have a different definition of free speech than the rest of the civilized world.

This is completely and utterly wrong. There are simply no supporters of free speech who differentiate it from "hate" speech, only the opponents of free speech do that so let's have nothing so mendacious enter the discussion. Freedom of speech is required in order to protect speech that others would prefer not to be expressed - no protection is needed for inoffensive speech, what would be the point!

As to "the rest of the civilized world", as pointed out several times now, very little of the "civilized" world has strong speech protections. Germany? Laws against Holocaust denial and defamatory fake news[1], which sounds Orwellian. France isn't pro-free speech either[2]. The UK has the backwards Communication Act and libel laws that are criticised the world over[3], leading to hundreds of convictions a year[4], including for posting your favourite rap lyrics[5]. Canada's free speech protections are anything but[6]. Australia has "less protection of free speech than most Western countries" according to a former High Court judge and there are raids on journalists[7], which we know happens in the US all too regularly[8] as well despite its much lauded first amendment. Italy charges writers for expressing opinions[9]. Perhaps I could complete the G8 with the state of free speech in Russia? Or you'd like to move on to places like Norway that only managed to get rid of its lese majeste laws in 2015? Or Thailand that still has them. Germany only got rid of its lese majeste laws in 2018 after a dictator tried to use them against a satririst, which brings us full circle and we haven't even touched the worst parts of the world.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/europe-germany-business-3d266e6de...

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/fran...

[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921#main...

[6] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/despite-what-you-may-th...

[7] https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-protect-free-sp...

[8] https://freedom.press/news/2020-report-journalists-arrested-...

[9] https://pen.org/sabotaging-free-speech-in-italy/

The fun thing about "hate speech" is that it's almost entirely arbitrary and can be redefined to suit the whims of the people in any given year. Free speech is the enemy to authoritarianism, not its ally. What is acceptable speech should not be able to change just because there's a change in government or a different party is elected.

I'll gladly accept that my definition of free speech differs from the "civilized world" that has no clue what free speech is and has basically no interest in protecting it.

> I think the only country that I can think of that comes close to actually protecting free speech is the United States

Nobody supports unlimited free speech. Everyone accepts there needs to be certain limits. Suppose there is a billionaire with a very dark personality, and you are a low-paid waiter in a restaurant. He's unhappy with the service you provided, and is in a particularly angry mood today, so he instructs his minions to falsely label you as a child molester, and spends millions spreading that false accusation across the globe, simply as a way of hurting you–does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech? But if you don't, you support defamation laws as a limit on free speech at least in some extreme cases, even if you think many of those laws (as they currently exist) go way too far.

So, if we accept free speech has to be subject to some limits – the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)? Is there some objective answer to how that balance ought to be drawn? You seem to think that the US does a better job of that than most other countries (or maybe even every other country)–maybe you are right, but surely that's an argument that needs to be made, rather than simply something which is self-evident (as you seem to think it is).

> does any one really think "free speech" should include the right to that kind of speech?

Some do propose this, most don't.

> the question is, where to draw those limits? How to balance freedom of speech with other freedoms (such as freedom from defamation, freedom from fraud, freedom from privacy invasion, freedom from perjury, etc)?

- freedom from defamation, provide a justice system where truth is the ultimate defence (as common law states have - it could be improved though)

- freedom from fraud, already covered by contract law and caveat emptor

- freedom from privacy invasion, that is part of free speech (you choose who you share information with, hence, privacy is implied and necessary)

- freedom from perjury, there are laws against perjury in common law

> Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others

As I pointed out, Japan's defamation law is painted in such a way as to make it so broad that it affects all speech. Hence, bringing up such an exception is not a refutation of the point but an indictment of the exception itself. As to the "national security" exception, the US's FISA courts are a good example - or should that be bad example? - of why such an exception is easily abused. Have you not heard of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks?

> You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia

2. If we were talking about the meaning of common words in common use I might agree on relying on a dictionary but we are not

3. Wikipedia is also not a source of truth in a discussion on free speech. If you wish to argue your point then try to steel man it instead of looking for ways to avoid dealing with those made by your opponents, please.

4. The Oxford English dictionary defines "free speech" thus:

> free speech > noun [mass noun] > the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint: it violated the first-amendment guarantee of free speech.

That doesn't support your point.

And since you brought it up, my own definition:

Speech can be said to be free when one has the ability to share a view:

- with whom one chooses

- at a time of one's choosing

- without interference or punishment (physical or otherwise) by government or society

and that view is neither maliciously false nor a credible and imminent threat.

I'm intrigued as to why it would matter, so I'll go with yes and perhaps you'll decide to tell me why.

Free as in Free Software

Reply on news.ycombinator.com