This is a fundamental misunderstanding of rights. The right of free speech is not intended to allow you to move your lips in a certain way and make specific sounds come out. After all, it's not as if the ability to speak were somehow prevented by government-mandated masks. Humans have always been physiologically able to say unpopular things, long before the concept of free speech became important.

The purpose of the right of speech speech is to remove certain, but not all, consequences of expressing opinions in public, i.e., outside of your head.

FWiW the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

    1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

    2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

    3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

    ( a ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    ( b ) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

makes no mention of anonymity but does specifically mention respecting the rights and reputations of others.

Sure, there are nuances. But the original comment implied that free speech is about the act of speaking itself, which is not true.

Yes. Furthermore, libel and slander are basically not protected as free speech.

In the US system at least, you can say whatever you want about someone... But if they haul you into court for damaging their reputation, you'd better bring receipts that you were speaking truth, to the best of your ability and knowledge. Not even the US right to free speech extends to spreading damaging falsehood.

So like in North Korea? You can also say whatever you want there. Of course, there will be consequences.

You can definitely not say anything you want in NK. You get censored at multiple stages.

Censoring is everywhere, even in free countries. The only difference is the degree of censoring, and the topics.

This specific case seems to be about defamation and (I suppose) the right of the plaintiff to know the identity of the person who supposedly accused(?) them of something?

I'm not sure what does this have to do with freedom of speech. It seems to be right to anonymity or something like that, which I don't think is guaranteed in most places?

There's a big range of possibilities between censored speech in dictatorships and a free speech absolutely not constrained by other human rights. In a normal democratic society speech is constrained just like every other right. It is strange to think otherwise.

No, it's more like in woke left. You can say whatever you like, but you say something they don't approve of, you'll be cancelled. They have even Code of Conduct to remind you of that.

Oh, wait.

Perhaps, I'm not sure what does this have to do with the article, though.

>No, it's more like in woke left.

Could you explain what "woke left" is? I understand 'left', i guess, but reading the rest of your comment i see that 'cancelling' [I'm guessing again - censoring?] is what 'the right' do too.

Certainly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture

Cancelling is distinct from censorship, because it's post-factum "consequences" (i.e. character assassination). "Censorship" is usually understood as measures that prevent publication in the fist place, before the actual speech happens.

> There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech

Attributed to Idi Amin

I'm severely confused by people who make arguments like the root comment. By that logic I have freedom of murder, since I'll probably only be caught and punished after I've done it

Free speech is about being able to say unpopular things, like that black people shouldn't be slaves in the early 1800s. It's not about saying untrue things. The tricky thing about "untrue things", is sometimes it's hard to see for certain, like "COVID was potentially a leak of a cultured virus from a lab".

Free speech mostly involves what things the government can do when you say things they don't like. I can say the government is a corrupt bunch of nepotistic idiots without fearing the government coming to my door and arresting me or forcing websites to take down such expression.

If I go around this forum posting "chips rapes children" everywhere you go and you sue me for defamation, that doesn't mean you're against free speech. You have the right to protect your good name as much as I have the right to express my opinions about you. I this example, you would obviously have the ability to crush me in court for spreading baseless accusations.

There are troubling threats to free speech, such as the incendiary lies spread under the guise of "fake news", followed by governments trying to control the wild conspiracy theories and endangering our rights to free speech in the process. However, you having the right to defend yourself against baseless accusations isn't a threat against anyone's human rights.

>> However, you having the right to defend yourself against baseless accusations isn't a threat against anyone's human rights.

The key point is that to defend yourself against baseless accusations often requires that the accuser be known.

Free speech is not just the government. The first amendment incarnation of it applies against the government, but the first amendment isn’t the whole of free speech.

The first ammendment doesn't apply to a Dutch court case.

Of course there's article 7 of the Dutch constitution (as a guide for laws related to speech, not necessarily for individual rights, as judges cannot directly use them in most judgements) and article 10 of the ECHR (which comes with loads of exceptions like ensuring protection of morals) but those are still directed at states and governments rather than individual freedoms.

Of course the concept of freedom of expression goes beyond the legal definition, but the legal definition is the only one that's relevant as that's the freedom you actually have.

You can also say true things that do not fall under free speech, like publishing somebody's home address. Clearly there's some balance to be found in releasing details about intimate relationships.

> Clearly there's some balance to be found in releasing details about intimate relationships

Yes and the current laws are adequate enough to address this. We don't need to restrict everybody's free speech because 1 person published their ex's home address. Stay out of my life and my business and punish the people for breaking the law. That's not a good reason to take the ability to be anonymous away from everyone.