[wjoe]

"The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections"

Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare.

Culturally, the US seems less tolerant of free speech than plenty of other places in the world. Obviously China is orders of magnitude worse, both culturally and legally speaking.

[throwaway66920]

Not even close to accurate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

[barry-cotter]

>> The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections.

> Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare.

There is at least a very good case to be made that the US has by far the strongest free speech guarantee. Commonwealth countries and the UK have nothing as strong as the first amendment. Canada’s free speech commitment is derisory in law because of the notwithstanding clause, the UK has the Official Secrets Act and Australia doesn’t have a right to free speech in its constitution.

I will pass over European countries with their Holocaust denial laws, bans on swastikas and the ECHR deciding that saying Mohamed was a paedophile as obviously having very weak commitments to free speech.

Maybe not the only country with true free speech protections but certainly it has the strongest.

[kibibu]

Ahem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

[beerandt]

This is a gross misunderstanding of the concept, and it pisses me off.

Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't give you the right to someone else's audience. It doesn't give you license to harrass. It doesn't give you license to trespass (including a properly licensed/permitted event on public property). It doesn't give you license to disruptively yell over whoever you might be protesting. It doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious for the same of getting attention, like blocking traffic.

Hijacking someone else's gathering is infringing on both their right to free speech and their right to peaceful assembly. Go have your own assembly somewhere else. There is no right to disrupt. If you can say the same message anywhere else in the country without restriction or repercussion, then you're freedom of speech hasn't been infringed.

That said, and even by that standard, the US is the most tolerant of free speech by far.

[gizmo686]

From Wikipedia on the Official Secrets Act [0]

> "The offences under the Act, that can be committed only by persons who, as the case may be, are or have been Crown servants, government contractors, or members of the security and intelligence services, can be committed only where the information, document or other article in question is or has been in the possession of the person in question by virtue of their position as such."

This seems less onerous then US laws related to classified materials. As with the UK, "normal" citizens are not bound by the law. However, those with a clearence are barred from speaking about classified material regardless of if they acuired access through their work. (They are also barred from reading classified materials, but that might be just a condition of maintaining clearence)

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989

[mytailorisrich]

There are quite a few restrictions in the UK. Anything that is considered hate speech, racism, etc. for example.

[htfu]

How does some countries “Holocaust denial laws, bans on swastikas” (not EU-wide), or “the ECHR deciding that saying Mohamed was a paedophile” (court refusing to overrule a local restriction on speech doesn't somehow make the standing blasphemy ruling any less specific to Austria...) indicate other European countries having "very weak" commitments to free speech?

[mwyah]

Go to Europe and say the holocaust didn't happen, see what occurs.

In fact many countries in Europe have blasphemy laws and they uphold them: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

[throwaway66920]

Meanwhile in America you are liable for insulting vegetables

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

Point is, every country has exceptions, and indexing on irrelevant edge cases isn’t especially useful. America is pretty darn good at free speech. But so is, say, Canada.

[j8014]

That has nothing to do with free speech. If I grow some vegetables and sell them and you come along and start advertising that they are poisonous with 0 evidence you can be sued by me for damages.

[ckpcw]

It really is about free speech, though. What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous?

'free speech' also includes zero-evidence claims, and even lies! Freedom of speech == Freedom of fake news.

[corodra]

"You're an asshole." That's protected as free speech and is recognizably known as an opinion.

"Your carrots gives people AIDS." Is slander/libel and not protected by free speech. That can be taken as fact and can have consequences to the grower, if the accuser lacks evidence. For fuck's sake, we have anti-vaxxers and measles is coming back due to people making stupid ass claims. If there is evidence and the courts say the accuser was acting in good faith with information they truly thought was true, they may pass on penalties, depending on the situation. Otherwise, if it's bullshit evidence, free speech won't protect you and yo' ass shall burn.

Now freedom of religion and freedom of speech do spar with each other. But it depends on the situation. Mormons say that alcohol is a ticket to hell... a sin... or some shit. If they keep that crap to their own little group, generally no one cares. That also plays into the right to assemble. If they parade around in bars yelling at people that alcohol is a sin/whatever... well, A. trespassing, B. potential harassment, C. I think potential slander or some other form of loss of revenue for the bar. D. Don't live in a fucking mormon town, you idiot.

You can tell a politician that they're an asshole or their policy is stupid and they should feel bad about that. The gov cannot do dick all to you. An opinion on policy or the gov in general is protected. But you can't say a politician is a child murderer without ACTUAL proof. Youtube "research" into the lizard people taking over the planet doesn't count.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be a cunt to society because you're some childish edge lord. If you really don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't vote either.

[jldugger]

> What if my religion decrees that your vegetables are poisonous?

Why use hypotheticals when we can use real examples? Kosher and hilal have opinions on food and cleanliness, and no lawsuits to my knowledge. That stuff is like double first amendment protected, considering it's both speech and religion.

[throwaway66920]

That’s correct. The problem is that the American agricultural industry has gotten laws that enable them to punish you for saying things that are, in fact, true, but inconvenient for them. These are specific laws handed out to prevent whistleblowers and researchers

[beerandt]

This is a civil matter between two non-government entities. It has nothing to do with government restrictions on or criminalizing speech. It's a form of fraud.

[throwaway66920]

If the government offers special interest groups special laws to impose economic penalties on others for saying certain things, then free speech has been restricted, just by different mechanisms. I understand this says “libel” laws but does not mean they are fair or only preventative of actual fraud. In many cases they’re used against claims which are actually true or said without the intent to deceive.

This is a better source than the Wikipedia I provided.

https://cldc.org/aeta-veggie-libel/

[beerandt]

If anything that article proves the law is working as intended. Truthful claims were allowed.

[throwaway66920]

They did, but the court fees were high, and are high enough to dissuade people who aren’t billionaire talk show hosts from saying similar things. As I said, America is quite good at free speech. But it has its gaps, much like most other countries which would self identify as free speech countries. In the grand scheme, they really don’t matter.

[decebalus1]

There's a nice little compilation [1] about free speech exceptions in the United States. It may be very helpful for climbing down high horses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[LanceH]

"Right to be forgotten" laws ban facts.

[eeZah7Ux]

Freedom of speech is specifically meant to protect citizens from oppressive governments.

It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive government.

[RankingMember]

When you start to add conditions/exceptions to free speech, it ceases to be free speech. Unpopular speech, however painful/nauseating, is explicitly protected in the U.S. If all speech was agreeable, there'd be no need for free speech laws.

[eeZah7Ux]

This is false. There are many laws preventing different types of speech. For example death threats. Or sexual harassment. The list goes on.

[j8014]

Yes, targeting individuals by telling them you are going to kill them is not protected by the first amendment lol It has nothing to do with

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[leftyted]

There are many arguments for freedom of speech.

One of the most famous centers around the idea that no one should have the ability to decide what can't be said because that assumes infallability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp...

So, yes, from this perspective, freedom of speech exists to protect Holocaust deniers.

The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. I don't think there are very many Holocaust deniers and I also expect that, somewhat unintuitively, banning Holocaust denial would create more neo-nazis. Banning an idea confers a certain amount of glamour.

[eeZah7Ux]

> The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me.

Suuure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

[leftyted]

I find it unlikely that a tiny minority that most Americans find utterly repulsive could "create a new oppressive government". It's like being worried that a UFO cult will take over the country.

[jessaustin]

After they've spent two years consuming the various conspiracy theories recycled ad nauseam by Maddow et al., they're primed to believe lots of stuff.

[eeZah7Ux]

The downvotes are telling. Is HN becoming 4chan?

[howard941]

The downvotes are too easy. They should cost karma.

[RankingMember]

Disagreeing with your statement is not the same as agreeing with holocaust denial.