[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-d...
Yes we do. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Every country has limits on what you can say (incl. USA). Perhaps you're just annoyed that Nazis aren't allowed called Holocaust victims liars?
I was more thinking along the lines of immunity from National Security Letters[1], which could be marketed to companies or individuals who want an extra layer of privacy guarantee.
For example, here is a quote from Dropbox's 2016 Transparency report[2]:
"We believe that those who use online services have a right to know if the government requests their data, and that service providers have a right to notify them of these requests. Often, though, requests for user data are accompanied by court orders preventing Dropbox from providing notice."
An EU-based Dropbox clone could market this as a unique selling point, that the above doesn't apply. Swiss banking for your online storage, if you will.
They always talk big about democracy and freedom of speech but we all know that it isn't quite like that in practice. (see: hate speech)
Personally I prefer this freedom than being able to legally spout racist, inciting garbage or to deny the holocoust.
Or having some malicious person selectively edit what you said? ("Captain Zapp said, 'Personally I prefer... to deny the holocaust'. Censor him!")
Don't assume that restrictions on free speech will always be used in good faith against the targets they "should" be used against. These things have a way of expanding their reach. They can reach you sooner than you think.
Disclaimer: Not affiliated, though sometimes hang around in same circles as some that work there.
I actually did some research on Owncloud hosting, turns out there's a whole bunch of providers that offer free consumer tier hosting[1], I haven't heard of any of them[1].
AFAIK most core developers of owncloud left that boat a while ago to continue working on the software in a more sensible way.
What?
- German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1]
- Dutch state enforcing jail sentences for lese majeste [2]
Wrong? Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech".
Article 5, GG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht...
> (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
Please note that I said prosecuted, not convicted, and I said prosecuted for insulting a foreign leader, not for speech. No such law against insulting a foreign leader exists in the US (and now as a result of this provocation it no longer does in Germany).
In this case, it’d have been prosecuted as libel/slander/defamation (as only untrue statements designed to hurt the reputation of a foreign leader can be prosecuted in Germany anyway).
You’d have the same case in the US.
Absolute free speech can have real consequences, here's a sad example from the Rwandan Genocide (copied from Wikipedia):
> The Power groups also believed that the national radio station, Radio Rwanda, had become too liberal and supportive of the opposition; they founded a new radio station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC), which broadcast racist propaganda, obscene jokes and music, becoming very popular throughout the country.[89] One study finds that approximately 10% of the overall violence during the Rwandan genocide can be attributed to this new radio station.
The US doesn't have absolute free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/crimi...
If you were to read, well, any source posted since then, you'd find that it was found that he was actually protected on appeal by the ECHR freedom of expression (aka freedom of speech) and freedom of religion.
Not that this is false (I have no knowledge either way), but... spinning it this way, like people are to blame for the costs of protecting them from violent retaliation against their speech, feels distasteful to me.
Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial.
Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
Now, saying something like "Disabled people are the scum of the earth and should be eradicated" would probably fall under hate speech laws in some jusidictions.
Note the qualitative difference of the statements.
Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech".
QED
Saying "I hate the left" is not hate speech, as politics is meant to affect you — it is meant to affect the whole world, after all.
Saying "I hate muslims" is hate speech: practicing Islam is not meant to affect you. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it however: a discussion is not a verbal attack. You can even say "I hate the Jehovah's witnesses that knock on my door", as the group you are referring to directly affects you.
I won't disclose my personal views, but this is usually what people mean when they say that they hate Muslims, at least according to my experience after talking to them and trying to understand where the problem is. I am yet to see a single person who claims to hate nonpractising moderate Muslims who openly condemn everything listed above – but not only on words, while secretly admiring, liking or even having nothing against any parts of it.
Although your real argument here is not about hate speech; it relates to proselytism, which definitely requires a legal framework.
No, it's not.
Edit: Big surprise that this got a quick downvote with no comment. Really helpful feedback.
Either cite some law supporting the statement in question, preferably one that distinguishes the actual 'line' not to be crossed, or recognize that saying you hate $GROUP is not the same as hate speech, at least in any sane place.
What's next? If I proclaim that I hate dogs, is that hate speech AND animal cruelty?
FWIW I love dogs, and my original short comment was a comment about free speech and sane limits on it. If you think it was a dig at Muslims, or that they're even relevant to the point, your reading comprehension sucks. I don't care what religion you are, it's none of my business as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect anyone else. I also haven't bought into the 'Muslim bogey-man' narrative, if that affects your interpretation.
Whoa, that's already extremely arguable.
<jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem, and saying I _think_ that <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem.
The same goes for insulting police officers. You can report your state of mind, but you can't use a descriptive tense, you need to explicitly state that it is your opinion.
I haven't ever been in trouble of this sort of thing, and I also think that almost every human knows when real hate-speech is being bandied about. But I do know that a few years back the courts in the Netherlands ruled that if you tell a police officer: 'you're a fag' you can't defend yourself by saying it was just an opinion.
That is far more worrisome then me then the supposed reincarnation of Hitler in orange form.
Christ, if Hitler isn't the new devil, capable of possessing people at random and these aren't the new Salem witch trials, I don't know what is.
My point is - EU does not enforce this. Individual countries do, and they follow their own rules.
Hate speech however is a bit of a weird topic. I am kind of extreme side on anti-censorship and agree that this is a problem (despite it's practical implications are minor - currently). I wished that people could say things like "our democracy is strong enough" and a person claiming the holocaust didn't happen would simply ridicule themselves, just like someone saying the earth is flat.
However, one also has to say that the effects of hate speech in the EU (likely to be ruining your career and similar things) are really close to the the effects of certain political statements in the US, like when you openly mention good thing about communism, speak badly about soldiers/veterans, don't act like the American flag is sacred, etc.
That said I think a good measure of a society is whether you can make "bad jokes" without fear. Usually actions against those are the beginning of an authoritarian system. I don't talk about actual bullying of non-public figures here. That may be coming close to an attack, when it goes into the direction of driving people to suicide or so, even though that's really far sometimes and people of course also need some skins if they consider themselves to be emancipated.
Anyway, I think free speech is way too often attacked for really minor reasons, when it should be withstand even rather good reasons, or else we cannot call it a right of the citizens of a country.
Also I think that people should focus on the now, even when they try to learn from the past. Currently action is taken against people that talk like Nazi Germans from 70+ years ago, when people that act in a similar, but maybe technologically more modern way are completely under the radar.
... I'm kinda OK with that?? That's the hill you want to die on?