[VWWHFSfQ]

But don't Germany and France both have actual laws against offensive speech on the internet that allows the government itself to compel social media websites to delete people's content?

Their feigned concern over Twitter excercising its 1st Amendment rights seems a bit hypocritical here.

[user-the-name]

> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies.

It's the second paragraph of the article.

[Arnt]

The US law laws for free speech, and it has societal norms, too. What norms people expect to apply in the fora they use, most prominently Facebook.

So they haven't updated their laws to match the current society's norms, and the result is that Facebook has to write rules for something approximating all of society. That cannot be simple for Facebook, and I think it's a bit cowardly of the two big parties that neither of them have really tried to bring the law into harmony with current perception of justice and acceptability.

[V-2]

Is "current perception" really common, or just what the loudest voices demand?

And even if it is common, in my opinion the very idea of free speech is that it may go beyond the commonly held notions of acceptability. It seems kind of pointless otherwise - what's widely accepted already shouldn't really need much protection.

Eg. penalization of blasphemy in theocratic societies surely passes the test of "freedom of speech" if you define it that way.

[Arnt]

That question of current perception is IMO a political question, and leaving it to Facebook to answer is what's wrong.

Merkel's done the right thing: She has tried to answer it, and bring the laws into line with what the Germans think currently think is just. (With which I may or may not agree, it doesn't matter, I'm not German.) Her attempt may or may not be a good attempt, but she did try. The Americans talk about the first amendment and turn Facebook into something that looks ever more like a combined lawmaker and court.

[VWWHFSfQ]

I think the difference is that while it may not be entirely practical to replace Twitter or Facebook as the primary means of discourse, it is certainly more practical than replacing the government. Twitter and Facebook imposing their own flavors of information censorship is a lot less dangerous than the government doing it universally.

[Arnt]

You're raising a strawman. Replacing government is not necessary, as Merkel proved by example.

Merkel's government was able to propose law changes and have them be voted on by the legislature. Replacing government was not needed.

[scj]

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater... Can you incite a riot, or hatred? What about representing fictions as fact in the news? What are the limits of satire?

The American answers to these questions aren't the same as they are in other nations.

While I don't fully agree with some of my nation's answers to these questions, at least I theoretically have a democratic voice in what those standards and laws are. But some private company in a foreign nation with foreign beliefs is unaccountable from my perspective.

Even if I boycott it, it doesn't mean much so long as my neighbors, friends, and family are using it.

[V-2]

"You can't yell fire in a crowded theater..."

Is it a matter of free speech though?

If you walk into a bank and say "load the bag with money, or I'll blow up the place", do you risk prosecution on the grounds of (abusing) free speech? After all what you did, essentially, was utter some words. (The bomb might never have existed).

What if the government passed a law to the effect of "you can't say the banking system is vile and corrupt because it may encourage people to rob banks"?

It's a slippery slope of sorts, and a line should be drawn, preferably grounded in some logical principle. I don't have a good answer off the top of my head; just food for thought.

[scj]

Whatever the limits may be... The heart of the problem is that the answer should be derived through the local democratic process. Not imposed on you by foreigners (and that means Americans in the German and French cases).

[user-the-name]

"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

[lqet]

Both Macron and Merkel seem to be concerned that private companies are deciding who gets an online presence, not an elected government and/or courts:

> German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private tech companies.

[Spiwux]

Not only that, Merkel's party is a significant driver in laws and regulations that reduce user internet anonymity.

Considering that multiple politicians voiced this opinion at surprisingly similar time this seems like some coordinated PR thing. They probably just realised that the same could happen to them and that they might have their communication channels cut off when they inevitably try to break up the big US tech giants

[grzm]

> "multiple politicians voiced this opinion at surprisingly similar time this seems like some coordinated PR thing"

It's not "surprisingly similar" when a lot of people start putting on jackets when it gets cold. Reactions to a common cause does not require coordinated action.

[kweinber]

The same exact thing can be said of the account suspensions/removals.

[muro]

You can have free speech without anonymity.

[krona]

The thing about the law is that it is supposed to be applied universally; it's kinda like some kind of prerequisite for 'justice'.

[tjansen]

Yes, Germany has laws against some speech. But, even though I am no lawyer, the last tweets I see on thetrumparchive.com should be legal here. The only one I am not sure about is "Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd" (insults can be illegal in Germany).

[tormeh]

>But don't Germany and France both have actual laws against offensive speech on the internet

So does the US. Try "I'm going to kill the US president" (maybe with a bit more specifics) and see how long you remain free. The US may have a bit freer speech than is normal, but there's no absolute free speech

[syshum]

You will stay freer longer than you would expect, you will get a visit from Federal agents but that comment is unlikely to raise to the level of a True Threat thus would be protected under the 1st amendment,

You may get added to watch lists, and federal agents may take a closer look at your life which could result in other charges or problems but it would not be that comment itself that violated US law

[refurb]

That’s the point that you seem to be missing. Europe has controls over speech...and they’re still concerned over what’s happening in the US.

[doe88]

Agreed, France at least (which I know best, being french) is far from being a model of virtue on free speech. There are numerous laws and ever expanding restrictions against free speech.

[commandlinefan]

You could spin that the other way: "wow, even countries that have _actual laws_ against offensive speech think that Twitter's ban of Trump was unreasonable - Twitter must be overreacting to what he actually said."

[nudpiedo]

As the article says free speech is regulated by law and shall not be restringed by a corporate decision. Usually free speech is incompatible when it offends an individual, and it will be restringed only after a judicial process takes place. The issue is that social networks have no right to do it.

[WhoCaresLies]

exactly, law rules, not Twitter or Facebook, they aren't justice, they aren't judges