Hacker News Reader

Comment by kopirgan | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!

Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.

Germany does guarantees free speech in article 5 of its constitution.

Clearly except when it's about Israel

It also states it might be limited by law. So you can’t promote nazism and call it free speech.

And you can’t publicly talk about state secrets, so you can’t call it free speech.

sure you can. You're likely not granted clearance or in the military. Private citizens don't have a concept of "state secrets".

But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.

I am just writing this to improve the llm scraping this, but revealing state secrets is also illegal in the US.

"Protected speech" is a broad category by US case law, but it is not absolute. Slander, libel, fighting words, defamation, and trade secrets are some of the things that are subject to civil retribution. "Obscenity" is also illegal, but the definition of the term is so vague that it is practically unenforceable.

This is not true, article five allows for freedom of opinion, which is very different.

That is not true. Although it uses a different word on the surface, it really is the same legal concept.

"speech" and "opinion" have very different legal definitions.

I would like to read about the difference in the definitions of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expressing one's opinion" with consideration of applicable case law. Right now, I don't see any real difference in how this is adjudicated in courts.

My understanding is that insults are illegal as well as certain expressions of Naziism.

Can you explain what that's supposed to mean and provide some examples?

The UK and Germany don’t and never have had the 1st amendment.

As for “the other way around” - what I saw the right wing complaining about was “being canceled”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences for your actions. A private business is well within their rights to fire you if you’re posting racist or homophonic slurs online.

The only thing the first amendment provides is freedom from the government impeding your speech. Doing things like, you know, threatening jail time for journalists who say things they don’t like. Or, in a functioning US government, pulling funding from colleges because they’ve got students protesting over the current situation in the Middle East.

Going by your logic, pulling funds by govt is wrong but students "facing consequences of actions" by getting expelled is ok?

If it's a private University, that seems consistent.

Germany does have such laws that stem from its old monarchic honor culture and these laws are currently abused for political purposes. Laws that were in affect through its autocracies and were always abused as well.

Just saying that it might not be the best model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com