Re:Removing Holocaust Denial Content
by throwaway894345 on Monday October 12, 2020 @11:52AM
(#24755697)
This seems like it would be very difficult to litigate. How do you ascertain the "predominant motive"? How do you define "serious or legitimate"? To whom? If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head-covering (or a Christian wearing a cross necklace) in a French school, it's probably very serious and legitimate to her, but perhaps not to a tribunal of secularists. There aren't any silver bullets for the issue of speech freedoms.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
In many important cases it's not too difficult. You look at the evidence and make the ruling. Finnish Supreme Court made precedent about banning fascist organization.
Here is summary in English https://korkeinoikeus.fi/en/index/ennakkopaatokset/shortsumm...
>Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that to invoke the freedom of association or the freedom of speech in order to disrupt parliamentary democracy, to promote national socialism as an ideology, or to justify the defamation or demeaning of an ethnic group was an abuse of these rights, as the objective was to cancel democratic government or to materially undermine other fundamental rights and human rights. Accordingly, the objectives and the activities of the association were not to be afforded the protection of the freedoms of association or of speech.
I wonder if that may be intentional so that when people to litigate it, it's going to be pretty obvious and leave very little room for doubt.
Re:Removing Holocaust Denial Content
by throwaway894345 on Monday October 12, 2020 @12:57PM
(#24756528)
Generally ambiguity leaves more, not less room for doubt, but IANAL.
Agreed but my point was that in order for such a lawsuit to succeed, it must clear such a hurdle that it leaves little room for anyone to doubt the justifications. IANAL as well so this is just me wondering and hoping someone who's more knowledgable can give some insights.