> In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
That's not true.
WTF are you talking about? Unless you're referring to state secrets or CSAM, or threatening an official, there's no way you're going to jail over a Facebook posting. And it's not a "slightly different line." Those and political speech are miles apart.
> As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
I'm going to bet that you've never been to Europe and understand that each country has very different laws. Cherry picking some random issues from several different countries and making it seem like it a policy of the entire of the EU is silly.
You can't incite violence - and if you do that when there's a riot ongoing, the punishment has resulted in jail time. Anything nazi related is also a no-go
Ukraine is in an active war. They restrict pro-enemy propaganda.
Do you think your outcome would be any different if you publicly posted pro-jihadi anti-American content on social media after 9/11?
Or put in prison during wartime and given a "similar level of healthcare that many in the US prison system receive" torture?
- for offending religious feelings
The US has stronger legal protection for speech and guns, but also more incarceration and police power. US incarceration rate is four times the UK rate.
Also in the UK, the speech restrictions are about stuff like glorifying terrorism, hate speech or harassment. You can criticize the government as much as you want.
In the US you're free to buy a gun, praise ISIS, and shout on the street that people should be murdered or that you love Hitler but not everyone likes that.
What do you mean? What can you currently not say in Europe and the UK without getting put in jail for it?
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it illegal to send offensive communications.
I could go on...
I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.
Free speach doesn't mean no rules/consequences.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179
That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".
There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.
If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.
We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.
Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.
In particular, the European Convention of Human Rights article 10 guarantees freedom of expression and overrules both of those acts: “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.”
So really S127 and the MCA cover extreme cases of harassment or abuse. Where it’s a problem is what makes something “grossly” offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing; the interpretation is down to the layers of magistrates and judges overseeing each case.
a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be falseBut you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).
And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.
> ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence
It takes 5 years on average to exhaust domestic remedies. Then another 3 years (on average) for the ECHR to hear your case. Needless to say, you can't afford it anyway.
Codifying it wouldn’t help it being abused though, and the US court system also has such problems, it takes time to prove that a right is being breached and a lot is down to the judge.
Also, there are strict limits to how long you can be fined or imprisoned under S127. The majority of cases result in small fines.
Apple disabled encrypted iCloud instead of giving the UK government a backdoor, or continuing to fight them on the idea in general. People in the UK can absolutely continue to encrypt my backups.
Any free speech isn't necessarily hate speech but any hate speech surely isn't free speech.
There's a huge difference and that restraint is ingrained in these societies based on their past experiences.
If you slander somebody your freedom of speech and their dignity need to be balanced.
In Germany we have chosen to rank dignity higher.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/policing-speech-online-germany-...
Also, I won't cry for the two 4chan basement dwellers from your article getting to face the consequences of their despicable actions. Sorry, our definition of free speech does not include harassment and flurries of racial slurs. Literally 1984, I know.
[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-us/article/2025/02/26/in-the...
Also, YOUR country is falling into authoritarianism, not mine, despite your "absolute free speech". Lies proliferation and rampant misinformation led to a President that is free from any accountability.
Also, I don't feel like there's anything to argue, look where allowing rampant misinformation and lies proliferation got your country. Your president is spitting Russian propaganda to Zalensky's face: "you started the war", "Russia will respect peace", "Europe only loaned money", etc. Your country is falling apart, not mine.
Also, let's not fall in false equivalences here.
Yes, it might theoretically make Europe less free, and now you have the Twitter guy being a member of the US administration doing Nazi salutes and promoting far right parties.
Suddenly Hitler was a victim. Like the disregard for the thousands of young men lost on the D day and to the war, to reach this freedom you're preaching.
Yet that doesn't seem to leave any sour taste, go figure.
But I have to ask, why you want the freedom for people to be able to promote Nazism?
That's just the first page of search results. Are you sure that rehabilitation of Nazis isn't welcomed in Europe?
If you want people to be free to promote Nazism, xenophobia, ethnophobia, racism, etc, and you're good with that because History hasn't taught you anything, that's your problem, not ours.
Just because things exist doesn't mean you should have a platform to promote them, this is a very basic concept.
Doesn't look like you understand that allowing the promotion of Nazism will do exactly that, promote Nazism.
You don't have to promote, but it would help if you did not actively suppress, which ties back my original point about being able to actually track what is going on. That is the problem with some people. They really do think they can control what and how people think. No. Scratch that. They really think they can influence how they will think.
<< Not really my problem, as there are laws in place where I'm from.
There are laws here too, but lately some were rather hellbent on going around them by 'partnering'.
I never said that there should be an institution to promote Nazism, people will do that. Look at Twitter, look at Elon Musk, that's what's happening on that front.
Now on alternative media, like , Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, promoting Russian propaganda stating that Hitler was a victim, and WW2 was Poland's fault, among other absurd takes that only people with low cognitive capacity and deficient education would believe.
This absurdity is reaching people in the US, and you want to protect that - which makes me question your true intentions lmao
If you believe that you can't influence people's behavior and how they think, you have not even a basic understanding on the subject and we will end our engagement here.
If you want to promote Nazism, and protect that, you're on the right track, but don't expect people from nation with proper institutions to follow through. Just deal with that.
Hopefully X will be banned in a lot of countries, the sooner the better.
You can and should question it. It is the whole point. I actively encourage that. This is how we grow some basic common sense and critical thinking skills. As for my intentions, at best I can say it is complicated, but it starts with: I get bored sometimes.
<< Now on alternative media, like , Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, promoting Russian propaganda stating that Hitler was a victim, and WW2 was Poland's fault, among other absurd takes that only people with low cognitive capacity and deficient education would believe.
If it only affects people with either low cognitive capacity and/or low education, surely it should not be a problem in a country, where nearly all real jobs require higher education. If it does affect them, maybe the factor you selected is not.. as useful as you think.
<< If you want to promote Nazism, and protect that, you're on the right track, but don't expect people from nation with proper institutions to follow through. Just deal with that.
Here you go again. Promote is not the same as allow. I am not sure, what your hangup is, but I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith.
<< Hopefully X will be banned in a lot of countries, the sooner the better.
You will be surprised to know, I would be perfectly ok with that. I might even cheer.
<< If you believe that you can't influence people's behavior and how they think, you have not even a basic understanding on the subject and we will end our engagement here.
edit: I would encourage you to re-read what I wrote. I don't think I want to post a novel here.
<< I never said that there should be an institution to promote Nazism,
Honestly, I think you are just lost.