FYI: you can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on Facebook in Europe and the UK. And the UK doesn't permit backup encryption. As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
> You can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on Facebook in the US too. It's just a slightly different line.
WTF are you talking about? Unless you're referring to state secrets or CSAM, or threatening an official, there's no way you're going to jail over a Facebook posting. And it's not a "slightly different line." Those and political speech are miles apart.
Try posting death threat about the US president on FB to see if you broke the law or not, and if it can land you in jail?
> As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
I'm going to bet that you've never been to Europe and understand that each country has very different laws. Cherry picking some random issues from several different countries and making it seem like it a policy of the entire of the EU is silly.
You can criticise the government in any way you like
You can't incite violence - and if you do that when there's a riot ongoing, the punishment has resulted in jail time. Anything nazi related is also a no-go
Not true. Germany can prosecute you for "insulting the public officials", Spain - for "insulting the royal family", Poland for "offending the Polish nation", Italy for widely interpreted "criminal defamation", in Greece it is illegal to insult the president, parliament or public officials, in Ukraine saying anything against the prevailing narrative lands you directly in a torture dungeon (like what happened with Gonzalo Lira, who lived in Kharkiv, and was arrested, tortured, and left to die of pneumonia by Ukrainian SBU).
At the risk of stating the obvious, you can criticise the government without personally insulting public officals. In fact, in Germany, you can be prosecuted for insulting anyone; there is nothing special about public officials.
The only people being jailed in the UK are violent criminals who use racism as a pretext for violence, and peaceful protestors who threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies.
Right, but that's not a free speach issue. I can critise a public officials handling of a situation, or disagree with a policy, or publicly protest a law, and not go to prison.
I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.
Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out to be false?[1] Do you have £50k on hand to defend yourself against the accusation that you knew it to be false when you sent it? Perhaps you'd rather spend 18 months on remand in the meantime, just to be sure you don't send anything else that might also be false, while we prepare your trial (which may or may not collapse due to a complete lack of evidence).
You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport) there are consequences.
That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".
There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.
If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.
We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.
Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.
Section 127 is problematic and should be updated for the internet age, but it’s disingenuous to imply that any “indecent, obscene or menacing” tweet will send you to jail.
In particular, the European Convention of Human Rights article 10 guarantees freedom of expression and overrules both of those acts: “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
So really S127 and the MCA cover extreme cases of harassment or abuse. Where it’s a problem is what makes something “grossly” offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing; the interpretation is down to the layers of magistrates and judges overseeing each case.
Again, the ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence. Good news! You can still post bad takes and disinformation online!
But you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).
And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.
I think you're grossly underestimating the CPSs ability to misinterpret legislation when it's convenient. On convictions:
> ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence
It takes 5 years on average to exhaust domestic remedies. Then another 3 years (on average) for the ECHR to hear your case. Needless to say, you can't afford it anyway.
I’m not underestimating, I said it was a problem several times, and also said it should be changed.
Codifying it wouldn’t help it being abused though, and the US court system also has such problems, it takes time to prove that a right is being breached and a lot is down to the judge.
Also, there are strict limits to how long you can be fined or imprisoned under S127. The majority of cases result in small fines.
But none of this is related to your opinion. So you are still free to state your opinion.
Insult, defamation, misinformation and hate should not be given the protection under the umbrella of free speech.
Apple disabled encrypted iCloud instead of giving the UK government a backdoor, or continuing to fight them on the idea in general. People in the UK can absolutely continue to encrypt my backups.
You can go to jail for criticizing the government in Russia and Belarus... Not in any of the EU countries. It's sad that you believed whoever sold you this lie.
Whataboutism? We're literally talking about a war Russia is the aggressor in.
The US has stronger legal protection for speech and guns, but also more incarceration and police power. US incarceration rate is four times the UK rate.
Also in the UK, the speech restrictions are about stuff like glorifying terrorism, hate speech or harassment. You can criticize the government as much as you want.
In the US you're free to buy a gun, praise ISIS, and shout on the street that people should be murdered or that you love Hitler but not everyone likes that.
American journalists are already getting silenced when talking up about the government. What EU county are you even talking about? Nowhere is it this bad in Europe.
Silenced as in, not given access to White House officials? Sorry but there is a difference between that and arresting people for things they say online.
Not given access to the White House, threatened by legal action and ousted from their journals [1]. Is that enough or should we only start to act when they get disappeared?
Also, I won't cry for the two 4chan basement dwellers from your article getting to face the consequences of their despicable actions. Sorry, our definition of free speech does not include harassment and flurries of racial slurs. Literally 1984, I know.
It is undeniable that European countries police speech more heavily than the US does. They have laws on the books that plainly give them this power. They exercise this power quite regularly. Feel free to argue that it is right for them to do so, but don't muddy the discussion attempting to redefine words.
Which words did I redefine? Our free speech doesn't include hate speech but it is still called free speech in our constitution. And it's boundaries are still clearly defined, just like yours.
Also, I don't feel like there's anything to argue, look where allowing rampant misinformation and lies proliferation got your country. Your president is spitting Russian propaganda to Zalensky's face: "you started the war", "Russia will respect peace", "Europe only loaned money", etc. Your country is falling apart, not mine.
American journalists aren't being silenced. One organization is being denied access to privileged executive spaces, which I disagree with and do not believe should be happening, but you need to be more honest in the language you use to describe what is happening. If you aren't, you're just as bad as the other side.
Freedom to promote Nazism and to promote the rehabilitation of Nazis isn't welcomed in Europe.
Yes, it might theoretically make Europe less free, and now you have the Twitter guy being a member of the US administration doing Nazi salutes and promoting far right parties.
Suddenly Hitler was a victim. Like the disregard for the thousands of young men lost on the D day and to the war, to reach this freedom you're preaching.
Yet that doesn't seem to leave any sour taste, go figure.
But I have to ask, why you want the freedom for people to be able to promote Nazism?
But that's your problem, don't try to shove that onto others, that's why we learn History in school.
If you want people to be free to promote Nazism, xenophobia, ethnophobia, racism, etc, and you're good with that because History hasn't taught you anything, that's your problem, not ours.
Heh. No. It is officially now your problem as well. Things magically don't stop existing just because you close your eyes and pretend they are not there. And here is a very practical reasons why you DO want to be able have people openly say whatever. If you can't see it, you don't even know it is a problem that may need to be addressed. At best, it is a very naive viewpoint.
<< Doesn't look like you understand that allowing the promotion of Nazism will do exactly that, promote Nazism.
You don't have to promote, but it would help if you did not actively suppress, which ties back my original point about being able to actually track what is going on. That is the problem with some people. They really do think they can control what and how people think. No. Scratch that. They really think they can influence how they will think.
<< Not really my problem, as there are laws in place where I'm from.
There are laws here too, but lately some were rather hellbent on going around them by 'partnering'.
I never said that there should be an institution to promote Nazism, people will do that. Look at Twitter, look at Elon Musk, that's what's happening on that front.
Now on alternative media, like , Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, promoting Russian propaganda stating that Hitler was a victim, and WW2 was Poland's fault, among other absurd takes that only people with low cognitive capacity and deficient education would believe.
This absurdity is reaching people in the US, and you want to protect that - which makes me question your true intentions lmao
If you believe that you can't influence people's behavior and how they think, you have not even a basic understanding on the subject and we will end our engagement here.
If you want to promote Nazism, and protect that, you're on the right track, but don't expect people from nation with proper institutions to follow through. Just deal with that.
Hopefully X will be banned in a lot of countries, the sooner the better.
<< This absurdity is reaching people in the US, and you want to protect that - which makes me question your true intentions lmao
You can and should question it. It is the whole point. I actively encourage that. This is how we grow some basic common sense and critical thinking skills. As for my intentions, at best I can say it is complicated, but it starts with: I get bored sometimes.
<< Now on alternative media, like , Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, promoting Russian propaganda stating that Hitler was a victim, and WW2 was Poland's fault, among other absurd takes that only people with low cognitive capacity and deficient education would believe.
If it only affects people with either low cognitive capacity and/or low education, surely it should not be a problem in a country, where nearly all real jobs require higher education. If it does affect them, maybe the factor you selected is not.. as useful as you think.
<< If you want to promote Nazism, and protect that, you're on the right track, but don't expect people from nation with proper institutions to follow through. Just deal with that.
Here you go again. Promote is not the same as allow. I am not sure, what your hangup is, but I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith.
<< Hopefully X will be banned in a lot of countries, the sooner the better.
You will be surprised to know, I would be perfectly ok with that. I might even cheer.
<< If you believe that you can't influence people's behavior and how they think, you have not even a basic understanding on the subject and we will end our engagement here.
edit: I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote. I don't think I want to post a novel here.
<< I never said that there should be an institution to promote Nazism,
Reddit is full of this, and nothing happens. At worst you will get a couple of folks from Secret Service come over and check up on the seriousness of your intentions.
"freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences". Freedom of expression is about whether the government will use state powers to arrest or silence you. Being uninvited to a gathering is not that.
It's not as simple as you state. Courts have, in the past, had something to say about The White House revoking press passes without due process.
The very first hit searching "supreme court decisions white house press passes" yields the following, and I leave it to you to search further if it pleases you.
Unfortunately it's an old site, and the deeper links within are broken. There aren't any court rulings yet that are directly on point with respect to the question of access. However, if the Government is conditioning press access based on viewpoint, that's immediately suspect, and I would expect the courts to apply strict scrutiny to it.
Apologies, I definitely put the minimum effort into that response. But as you stated, the point is government control over the press tends to raise constitutional questions.
This was not a private gathering, though. This was a public conference held by the President of the United States. That is the government choosing who is allowed to speak and who isn't.
I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but there are certain things that are huge red flags for freedom of press and freedom of expression. The government moving against press that is critical of it is dangerous. We should always be wary when that happens.
He claimed, incorrectly, that people who live near abortion "buffer zones" in Scotland were sent letters by the government warning them about praying privately within their own homes. This was nonsense.
