Hacker News Reader

Comment by _heimdall | Hacker News Reader

> Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?

That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.

I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.

View on HN

The US banns a lot of stuff too, from porn to sharing songs.

A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today.

I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.

You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence?

America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits

>You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency?

I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.

So your definition of free speech is different to others, for example JSG Boggs [0]. Unsurprising really, and not really "wrong", any more than people who have different opinions to you are wrong.

[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-die...

I do personally disagree with this definition. Free speech was always intended to protect the right to say whatever you want. The expansion of what falls under free speech is dangerous and, as made clear today, leads to arguments that erode what was originally meant to be a fundamental right.

> Free speech was always intended to protect the right to say whatever you want.

Who intended that?

So you have no problem with defamation? Or threats?

Child pornography is not speech. Copyrights also aren't related to free speech as far as I'm aware, that's intellectual property law.

I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.

Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.

That's why the conversation in Europe is usually about Freedom of Expression, not Speech.

I've never actually understood the difference, curious if you can help fill in a few blanks for me.

How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?

It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.

You are free to express your opinions ("I don't like immigrants from Africa"), but you are not free to choose any manner of speech, as there's restrictions in certain areas, such as hate speech or inciting violence ("Kill the N-words!")

Isn't that full of loopholes though?

It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.

Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?

Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.

It certainly is a lot more ambiguous than absolute free speech, yes. I think your example would still count as hate speech inciting violence against black people. The Nazi one I'm not sure off the top of my head, to be honest.

Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law

In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly

However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).

"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)

This has always been a huge hangup for me with laws in general. If a law isn't clearly spelled out enough to be able to know when I would be in the wrong before I act (or speak), I'm effectively at the whims of the legal system and I can't avoid it.

The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com