Can we stop pretending the USA doesn't have limits on freedom of speech? There is a nice list. Some highlights: libel, slander, fighting words, copyright, ... Even obscene speech isn't protected... Seems like a bigger limit on free speech than hate speech.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Germany plans to fine social media sites that do not remove reported hate speech
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
- Status
NiiloPielinen
Member
I don't like this idea that nameless tech company employees are appointed judges, juries and executioners on matter of free speech.
When something is deleted:
Who made the decision?
On what grounds?
Does the person who made the decision have conflicts of interest in the matter?
Can you appeal?
When something is deleted:
Who made the decision?
On what grounds?
Does the person who made the decision have conflicts of interest in the matter?
Can you appeal?
That is exactly how the situation is already, though.
with the law proposed by Germany the judges will be actual judges and the grounds and appeals will be done in a court of law.
No one ever said that there aren't any limits on speech.
Hell, planning to commit a crime is a version of speech, as is making an explicit threat to someone.
The point is that list of limits should be as short as possible.
Why, though? To me it seems the more limited European view on free speech is better than the US one. Looking at the societies side by side, the American free speech doesn't seem to result in a better or more free society, just open racism.
Honestly? Because I (and others) feel that the additional limits placed on freedom of speech are ethically wrong, period. It's not about a slippery slope, it's about right and wrong.
European society veers in the other direction, and that's ok. We just value different things.
It's not perfect the system the US has, and that leads to a lot of problems. But that's the price we pay.
So you look at things like slander and think those limits should be removed?
benjipwns
Banned
To grant the state the power to suppress speech is to undermine the very purpose of representative democracy in a republic:
Hugo Black concurring said:
Defamation is not criminal.
Not that you have any right to demand others grant you a specific reputation.
No, but slander is a very difficult issue to prove. It's also a civil issue, not a criminal one.
So you think the government should have this power for civil issues and not criminal ones? That is some weird limits put on free speech. It also ignores that in 1/3 of the USA it is potentially a criminal offense, as 17 states do have criminal defamation laws.
?
What power is that? Slander isn't against the law, and the government doesn't come after someone for committing it.
I guess that is a consistent view about it. I can see what you mean.
In my opinion one of the most important things a government has to do is to protect minorities from from the majority, and that includes things like limiting free speech. I mean for example we have the 'market will punish people' argument but it doesnt' seem to work, bigots will just bankroll other bigots out of spite nowadays.
benjipwns
Banned
The difference between a crime against the state and a tort is a pretty big fucking difference.
How does violently suppressing the voice of minorities protect them from the majority (which presumably is the foundation of the government's authority in the first place)?
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
Are they going to fine the post office if you send a letter containing words the government don't like?
I think the government should protect minorities, of course. I think that policing people's thoughts and their basic communication of said thoughts is a bridge too far.
Does the post office get an open envelope and an opportunity to read every letter, while also hanging the said to a wall for the public to see?
Comparison makes no sense.
So like yelling hate speech at a person? Because you can still freely insult the German government.
That is why equality is the first thing in most European constitutions.
I think you are confused about the difference between a civil issue and a criminal one.
Souldriver
Member
Good. Society and governments still underestimate the real effects of words and actions done via 'the virtual' world.
Good on Germany. Now make it European law (if possible).
Good on Germany. Now make it European law (if possible).
It is not a civil issue in German law, it is a criminal one. It can also be a criminal issue in 17 of the American states.
It also shouldn't matter, it is a judge interferring in free speech. If you want to stop the limits, that isn't a good enough distinction.
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
The issue is you're attacking the platform and not the perpetuators. You're also creating a situation where the government has absolute authority on what people can say on platforms they don't control that operate outside their country. It's a slippery slope. "Hate speech" is ambiguous.
No one said otherwise. But the difference between civil or criminal is not a meaningless distinction.
If someone wants to think that "the Holocaust actually wasn't that bad and let's repeat it with refugees" they can. And then they have to face the consequences.
Germany is right on this one. Someday you naysayers will understand that.
benjipwns
Banned
Who claimed that?
I said there was a massive difference between you being prosecuted for crimes against the state (criminal law) and facing a civil tort (lawsuit). Namely the whole part where the latter has barely any chance of leaving you imprisoned in a cage or murdered by the entity claiming to be protecting your rights.
Yes, tossing them in a cage or mudering them will show everyone the proper way for a state to act towards the citizens it protects.
I'll be the one to judge what is enough of a distinction for me, thanks.
And once again, no one is advocating no limits at all on speech. So who are you arguing against?
I don't think people should have to face criminal consequences for their thoughts, no matter how repugnant they are.
I don't think I will ever change on that front, and I don't think I need to.
Typically for you, I have no idea what you're ranting about. Try asking something that makes sense?
Can you, for example, give examples of where countries like Sweden, Germany, and Finland are violently suppressing the voice of minorities because they have stricter free speech laws than the USA?
*crickets*
These platforms operate in their country as well. The fact they also operate outside them, should not matter.
So make it clear: which limits do you want gone? Because at the moment you are just arbitrarily arguing this one is bad.
Aside from the places where defamation is part of the criminal law, including 17 American states and Germany. Your problem also seems to be with the American prison system, not with the European one.
Chairmanchuck
Member
Thoughts not.
But if you tell me Im a goatfucking motherfucker, that loves to bath in shit and eats my friends feces, I think I should have means to defend myself from that, legally.
If you punch someone, you get physical damage.
If you hurt someone with words, you might get psychological damage.
benjipwns
Banned
This is what you said:
The majority of citizens decide the government? No? If no, then ignore, we have an authoritarian state and this question is moot.
If yes, then in the case of criminal prosecution for those who speak in ways the government does not wish, then we have the majority, acting through the state, punishing the minority for its speech. It is not protecting the minority from the majority it is enabling the majority's violence.
Simple, right?
Suuuure. Okay, I edited this in too late so you missed it but here's what I was asking:
Can you, for example, give examples of where countries like Sweden, Germany, and Finland are violently suppressing the voice of minorities because they have stricter free speech and hate speech laws than the USA?
In my opinion the human right to exist without harassment is a more important one than the right to be able to harass and abuse someone.
More to the point: where I live members of parliament and members of current government parties have been successfully prosecuted for hate speech and racism. How is that bad? And how is that majority tyranny? I'm more interested in reality than theory here.
Dude, you need to maybe try being a little less insulting. My beliefs aren't arbitrary, and it's not your place to call them such.
To answer, I don't really have a problem with slander being a civil matter. To commit slander, someone has to knowingly lie, and for that lie to cause harm. That's not the same as honestly trying to communicate an idea.
benjipwns
Banned
You're a goatfucking motherfucker that loves to bathe in shit and eats your friends feces.
On the downside, you also abhor protecting human rights like freedom of speech.
You don't agree with the Grundgesetz. In that case whatever you say or think doesn't matter.
And people can think what they want. The moment they communicate those dangerous thoughts is the moment they have to be ready to face consequences. In this proposal it's up to the social media companies to actually do what they promised months ago. They didn't. Now they'll be forced.
Then you are free to sue that person in civil court, maybe they will agree with you.
But it shouldn't be a criminal matter.
PdotMichael
Banned
If the post office has a bulletin board where everyone can write whatever they want then yes they have the responsibility of checking and moderating the content of the board.
Well this is a discussion board and I am expressing my views on this subject
Chairmanchuck
Member
In Germany I could sue you for that now, if I want
Granted, the investigation wouldnt go as far as a court-date, but you might have to pay a fine.
The thing is that our constitution protects the rights, also the personal rights, of someone. I cant really convey it well in english, but there is a reason those laws are in place.
Its a matter of both. In German law Civil Law and Criminal Law are always entangled. If someone cuts me, I sue them for that and I can sue them for the (monetary) damages I suffer (insurance).
So you think hitting someone and that person having physical damage is "criminal" worthy, but insulting someone and that person might suffering from psychological damage isnt?
You have done no job at explaining the distinctions you make what makes existing limits good enough and what makes hate speech a bad one.
Honestly trying to communicate Holocaust Denial or that racial groups are worthless?
I think what may be difficult for non-Germans to understand is why the Grundgesetz makes such a huge deal out of this to begin with. But the dignity of each individual is the first and most prominent line in it. Everyone knows it. It's the key to not let Nazi-Germany ever happen again. We in Germany know its importance and accept it. It may be in conflict to with other rights, but some rights are more important than others.
Well (in the US, not an expert on German law), you can't "sue" someone in criminal court, as crimes aren't committed against individuals, they are committed against the state. So the state would bring charges against someone for stabbing you. You can separately sue them in civil court for damages.
And Assault in the US is a criminal charge, and that requires no physical contact.
Yes, those are ideas, and people should have the right to communicate them.
Those people are monsters. But they have rights.
Chairmanchuck
Member
So if I insult you, it would count as Assault?
benjipwns
Banned
I don't speak Swedish or Finnish and don't trust the sites where I find translations of them as they're mostly hyperventilating about Muslims or homosexuals, but if there is a single case in which a person was arrested and prosecuted, even if later overturned, for their speech then it is an instance in which the state has violently suppressed the voice of a minority.
EDIT:
How is this a human right? It can't exist without others to impose the duty upon.
Oh, well, if you're in Sweden, Germany or Finland there's an example then. The government arresting members of parliament or candidates for political office for their speech definitely sounds like the actions of an authoritarian state to me.
Also looks like a majority imposing itself on a minority.
Until that individual finds themselves perpendicular to the wishes of the state!
Some rights are more important than others. I value freedom of thought and expression very highly, even if that can have ugly results.
Again, I understand the opposing viewpoint, and I don't think anyone is bad or immoral or evil for having it. It is a difficult position my beliefs put me in, and I do struggle with them.
Depends on the context. "Fighting words" in the US are not protected speech, but it's a very narrow definition.
Unless you mean right now on this message board, in which case it would never reach assault.
If you believe the Nordic social democracies are violent authoritarian states you're either some sort of fanatic ideologue or insist on living in a some sort of a fantasy land. In both those cases the discussion is pretty much pointless.
benjipwns
Banned
Don't. Free speech absolutism is the only sane position, anything else sacrifices liberty for the false promise of security. Read the Hugo Black quote I posted above for more.
Stop oppressing my minority views with your majoritarian ones. Help police!
- Status