[jruohonen]

> We do not have free speech in constitution, like US.

Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter. Granted, these may not allow the expression of the things you mentioned. (And I am not sure whether the Constitution in the U.S. either allows inciting violence.)

[kmlx]

> Of course we have it, both in national constitutions and in the EU's Charter.

not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. 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. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[lm28469]

> not really. it's freedom of expression, but with major caveats:

So... just like in the US ?

> In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by precedents set in various legal cases. There are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words, fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct

Americans and their "muh freedom of speech" comments are the funniest thing ever, yours isn't absolute, like everywhere else, it's been proven times and times over

[kmlx]

> Americans and their "muh freedom of speech" comments are the funniest thing ever,

be careful with comments that tend to assume things.

i'm not american, don't live in america. the comment was about Europe and their "free speech", which in effect is much less "free" than in the US.

major differences between the US and EU when it comes to "free speech":

Absolute vs. Qualified Right:

US: The First Amendment offers strong protection against government censorship. While there are limitations (e.g., incitement to imminent lawless action, obscenity, certain kinds of hate speech), the U.S. generally offers wider latitude for free speech compared to many other countries.

EU: The right to freedom of expression in the EU is a qualified right. Article 10 of the ECHR itself provides that the exercise of this freedom "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." Reasons can include interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, preventing disorder or crime, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and reputations of others.

Hate Speech:

US: Hate speech, unless it directly incites violence or imminent harm, is generally protected by the First Amendment. However, this protection does not extend to private institutions or platforms which can set their own speech regulations.

EU: Hate speech is less tolerated in the EU, and many member states have laws that criminalize speech that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, and more.

Libel and Defamation:

US: To win a defamation case, public figures must prove that the statement was false and that it was made with "actual malice" – meaning the person knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

EU: Defamation laws vary among EU member states, but the threshold for proving defamation is generally lower than in the U.S., especially for private individuals.

Limitations and Restrictions:

US: Limitations on speech often relate to time, place, and manner rather than content. There are also laws against obscenity, child pornography, false advertising, and speech that incites imminent harm.

EU: The EU and its member states have implemented various laws that can restrict speech for reasons including public order, morals, and protection of individual reputation.

Digital Platforms:

US: Private digital platforms (e.g., social media sites) are not bound by the First Amendment and can set their own content policies.

EU: The EU has been more proactive in regulating digital platforms, such as enforcing the right to be forgotten or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There is also more emphasis on combating fake news and misinformation.

Cultural Differences:

Cultural and historical contexts drive some of these differences. For instance, Europe's experience with fascism and hate-driven ideologies in the 20th century has influenced its stricter stance on hate speech.

[jruohonen]

Of course, only a few of the rights (freedoms) are absolute (even in the US). Note also that the European Convention on Human Rights is not a 1:1 equivalent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

[kmlx]

the differences are quite substantial: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37855807

[RetroTechie]

2) Essentially means that distribution of 'objectionable material' should be proportionate to the public's interest in such material.

Eg. spreading state secrets would be illegal, but if such secrets would show things like war crimes, publication may be okay (whistleblowing) given the public's interest in knowing those crimes.

Imagery of gore / killings etc follows those same lines. Traditional media tend to be conservative there, and self-censor on the side of caution. Social media... not so much. Likes!

On a side note, I suspect many a politician would like to blur the line between graphic imagery & misinformation. That's intellectually dishonest imho:

Imagery can be extremely graphic, yet simply show what happened. And sometimes, it may be appropriate for the public to view such content. I rarely have any objection there as long as viewers are warned what they're about to see. Whether you'd want to distribute such material, is a matter of (bad) taste.

And otoh, one could have harmless-looking content that is 100% bs / misinformation. Possibly dangerous too. Removal of such material brings a host of issues concerning grey areas, who's to decide what's true, whether material is fake or not (and how to determine), what sources are 'trustworthy', etc etc. Flagging (but leaving available) seems a better approach there.

Leaving the remove option for things like copyright violations, calls to violence, etc.

2 Orthogonal subjects. Treat separately.

[yostrovs]

Restricting publishing videos of world changing events, which make it clear what actually happened, is the opposite of free speech. Publishing videos of others commiting acts of violence is not inciting violence. Please read 1984 to help prevent changes in meanings of words.

[sergiosgc]

What about restricting publishing of false videos of world changing events? Because that's what the EU is railing about...

[tekla]

Well, have fun defining "false" in a meaningfully fast way

[lm28469]

Take all these journalists claiming "40 babies were beheaded" for a start. Even the government of israel denied it

It should be fairly easy to "prove" 40 babies have been beheaded

What about he "children in cages" ? Repurposed videos from Syria a few years ago, easily debunked, yet it got hundred thousands of views on twitter

[sergiosgc]

The EU Commission letter has a few examples. Easy enough for a moderation team to spot, if there was a moderation team in place. Complaining that it is difficult is no reason to skip moderation altogether.

[burnished]

Repurposed footage from other wars or video games was called out in the letter, seems like a fast and uncontroversial definition of false.

[fzeroracer]

Sure. False as in fake as in it never happened. Which is what's happening on X and what the EU has examples of.

[nathanaldensr]

Seeing the reality of evil in the world is not inciting violence.