Hacker News Reader

Comment by GuB-42 | Hacker News Reader

The US, at least in spirit is all about individual freedom, including freedom of being an asshole, and also the freedom of punching that asshole in the face, metaphorically speaking.

Europe values freedom too, but not as much as making sure people are not assholes. So, freedom of being an asshole is not a thing in Europe, and the government does the punching in the face so that you don't have to.

Which is best is honestly debatable. It is the usual question about the individual vs the collective. The US is on the individualist side, East Asia is on the collective side, Europe is somewhere in the middle.

View on HN

> the freedom of punching that asshole in the face, metaphorically speaking.

This is not at all a freedom in the US. “The right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s nose.” You don’t get to harm someone else just for being “an asshole”. You can be an asshole back but you don’t get to violate their rights.

Do you understand what "metaphorically speaking" means?

Yes. Your metaphor implied actual harm, like a punch causes. Did you not understand your own metaphor?

That's... not what a metaphor is.

An example where it involves actual harm, related to freedom of speech.

In the US, defamation laws are particularly narrow, insulting people is generally legal, and "hate speech" is mostly legal too. And even though it is not physical harm, it is definitely harmful. But Americans accept the compromise because they value free speech a lot.

In most of Europe, it is different. Defamation laws are broader, sometimes including telling the truth if it is done in a misleading way. Insulting people, public servants in particular may also be illegal, even though it is rarely applied on a day to day basis, it can be in some contexts. And what constitutes punishable hate speech is much broader, Germany is notorious for this when it comes to Nazism.

As for actual bloody harm. In the US not only you are allowed to defend yourself in case of an agression, you are supposed to, and you are given the tools to do so (i.e. guns). In several state, you can shoot people trespassing, something that is seen as barbaric in most of Europe. Europe also has self defense laws, but they tend to be narrower, and you are generally not allowed to carry weapons.

What meets the legal definition of harm for speech has no bearing on whether you can inflict harm on someone else in response to something that does not meet that legal threshold of harm. For example there is no scenario in which you can defame someone because they said something mean, whether or not what they said meets the legal definition of harm. You can’t libel someone back for libeling you.

> As for actual bloody harm. In the US not only you are allowed to defend yourself in case of an agression, you are supposed to, and you are given the tools to do so (i.e. guns). In several state, you can shoot people trespassing

None of this is true for the US. You do not have a duty to defend yourself, in fact it is the opposite. You have a duty to retreat, and only if there is no reasonable avenue of escape without putting yourself more at risk do you have the right to strike back in self defense. The Castle doctrine you are referring to re: trespassing is a merely an exception to the rule, in which you do not have a duty to retreat within your own home. You still must meet the other requirements for self defense and can only respond with a level of force proportionate to the perceived threat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com