Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences*

*Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".

> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." > I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it

Not quite. You did not quote a critical part -- being free from consequences from the government. And as governments, almost everywhere, give themselves a monopoly on the use of force "if I say the wrong thing I get punished for it" does not apply.

Thus whoever wants to punish you needs to petition the government for help and prove their case -- if I make false claims that you consider damaging you can ask the government to help and prove your case in a civil court (instead of, say, punching me in the snout to punish me directly). Just my 2c.

There are a bunch of relevant passages about this in Animal Farm, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.

For example-- that famous one where the hedgehog pornography tycoon runs an add in his magazine accusing one of the pigs of having sex with his own mom, and then is cleared by a panel of pig judges who rule that parody is protected speech.

Where is that passage in Animal Farm? Maybe I don't have the details correct, but I certainly remember reading a long passage where Orwell clearly establishes that a book of satire like Animal Farm itself would be allowed in the Animal Farm universe. I thought it was such a nice touch of optimism in an otherwise dreary book. (And if I remember correctly it was a welcome respite from those long boring passages of complicated libel case law in the animal world.)

I mean civil consequences. If someone says something I dislike, and I disassociate with them, that's a consequence. Nobody should ever be jailed for their speech and that's what it's designed to protect against.

Libel is special because it's purely a civil matter and usually has to prove malicious intentions.

I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech.

Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist charge.

Please dont do it. 1A is protecting you, but they still got guys with batons, tear gas and tazers. It is not about the letter within some law but rather how it is practised, by insulting someone strong enough, law might protect you but at the end you will still finish as a begger. And, me personally, I wouldnt dare to do it in states. Actually I would rather do it in Switzerland. Or maybe even Thailand.

I disagree. This is the very thing freedom of speech protects, bar violent incitement. The great thing about the US is that FoS is not not just a law, but also a cultural tentpole. I doubt the people holding the tazers would carry out their orders in this case.

Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Why did you post it?

Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement.

If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it.

BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech.

Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.

The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict.

Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then there were all the surrounding circumstances of how he set this up.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha...

Prudent defense or not, no law should be written in the first place so as to criminalize a joke YouTube video under its letter. Nor should citizens (or subjects in this case) be compelled to explore the necessities of free expression as a criminal defense for making a simple joke.

Thankfully in the US we have already codified free speech into law. Unfortunately there are still many who do not consider the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be a settled issue.

The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment.

You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.

I don’t believe that is accurate. Courts routinely issue gag orders.

> You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.

And that has severe consequences as you see.

Popper said it many years ago.

The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it