-
Quote
Tell that to China with their mass survaillance and people rating system.
Well that exist in Europe to. In Germany called "Schufa" and in Austria are different Rating Agency bee used for.
Quotebut the European Court of Human Rights have jurisdiction in all European countries
in theory... sure!QuoteThis makes China's great firewall look sane
the difference between China and Europe is in China you know the block the half of the Internet in Europe the do the same but claim to have an open and free Internet.
Quoteuse a computer in a public library
who you have to register with your ID.Quotedon't bring a pocket knife if you're going to Denmark.
perfect another country on my List I will never Visit (again).
It seem Russia and the eastern European Country are the safest in Europe. 
Walk around with my 400ml Pepperspray? Nobody care about.
QuoteWhat if I am "caught" carrying around a large Maglite at night like this one
You won maybe a night on a Place where you get monitored 24/7.
QuoteIn Germany it is illegal to deny things that are considered by all historians to have happened.
Well it depend how you say what happened back then. If you say like me you are not sure when the Building got into the final stage we can see now its not violate directly the law. The Americans lied so often that we cant be sure that what the claimed back then wasn a lie.
QuoteThe UK population is approximately 5% Muslim.
It seem enough Power to dicdate the life of the rest. Pork get Banned, more and more cruel slouthert Animal get sell as Hallal,...QuoteHate speech
Well the definition what it is or not depend on the Country and Person. When a Religion Group say all Jewish People must die its not hate speech for them. If you say in Saudi Arabia there are other religion and someone try to concert the can (and maybe will) be executed.
so...
-
Laws like this tend to be used in the worst way possible. And the people it will be used against will be innocent as far as the original intent that law is concerned.
-
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US. https://rsf.org/en/ranking
I have to question that report. It may be representative of reporters and established news organizations but "freedom of expression" does not only cover their freedom but that of the entire population.
Spanish reporters may have their own experience and point of view but I can guarantee freedom of expression for the entire population is better protected in the USA than in Spain. In Spain extreme right expressions will get you shut down PDQ, by the authorities and by "uncontrolled individuals" while the authorities look the other way.
The fact that reporters have an easier time in Spain does not detract from that. Yes, reporters can report whatever they want (usually what their organization wants) but a political party or other organization is not as protected as they would be in America. -
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies?
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
The real reson for that was some immigrant Allhua Ahkbar people and some neoliberal Millenia Hipster kids who didnt understand that fireworks are supposed to be launched upwards not side ways as duly reported by MSM for past 3 years. Else govt would have banned fireworks decades ago argues people , and as usual there is some truth to that. The license to fireworks is around 9500sek. But for the sake of animals protection (i know i had a cat who was shit scared of fireworks) im for the ban, kind of swatting 3 flies in one smack.
Besides that it seams UK is going down the drain! BREXT!
Youtube: They have and still do remove videos of ISIS chopping heads, i see this as a criminal act as its a removal of
evidence of a crime. -
See, you want the ban for your pet, yet you blame it on immigrants and hipsters?
The real reson for that was some immigrant Allhua Ahkbar people and some neoliberal Millenia Hipster kids who didnt understand that fireworks are supposed to be launched upwards not side ways as duly reported by MSM for past 3 years. Else govt would have banned fireworks decades ago argues people , and as usual there is some truth to that. The license to fireworks is around 9500sek. But for the sake of animals protection (i know i had a cat who was shit scared of fireworks) im for the ban, kind of swatting 3 flies in one smacklol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies?
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
Yes there have been some fear mongering in media about rockets being launched horizontally. But that have been happening as long as I can remember, long before any mena refugees or hipsters. When I was a kid people used to blow up postboxes with firecrackers, or scare old ladies by putting a firecracker outside the door and then ringing the doorbell, etc. Everyone knew you shouldn't be at the town square during new years eve since some "cool" kids would fire rockets horizontally at you. Every now and then someone got hurt. First they banned firecrackers and now rockets.
I'm convinced the real reason is that a lot of people like you don't want their pets to get scared (or themselves), and there's also been concern about environmental pollution (heavy metals). And that is fair enough. My mother stays home every new years eve worrying that her house will burn down because of a stray rocket.
So, for the most part, some people just don't like it(tm), never have. Maybe it's for the best, but I'm still a bit sad about it. I always loved pyrotechnics as a kid, there was something magical about it, and future kids will never get to experience that. -
Survaillance for everyone. And the "NO-ZONES" GO grows by the social parasites
Ban the guns for everyone. And the social parasites have from guns until grenades ,while the worker people are unprotected.
Welfare state for everyone. And the social parasites recieve all the subsidies,besides they rob to worker people who pay their subsidies.
From the policeman prosecuted for hurting to three of the five assaulters at own house ,after receiving a beating. The fiscal request 20 years of jail by the policeman and 5 years of jail by assaulters ,besides of the Civil Responsabilities of the 300.000 € by the policeman for injurying the assaulters.
Passing by the squats who take up illegally houses, for more INRI, they kick out an older couple from own house. Until the Herds Allah's who raped and robbed.
It will arrive time ,that we shall have to defend creating militias and Death Squad if politicians follow with the actual ideas ( Future = Mad Max).
-
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US. https://rsf.org/en/ranking
I have to question that report. It may be representative of reporters and established news organizations but "freedom of expression" does not only cover their freedom but that of the entire population.
Spanish reporters may have their own experience and point of view but I can guarantee freedom of expression for the entire population is better protected in the USA than in Spain. In Spain extreme right expressions will get you shut down PDQ, by the authorities and by "uncontrolled individuals" while the authorities look the other way.
The fact that reporters have an easier time in Spain does not detract from that. Yes, reporters can report whatever they want (usually what their organization wants) but a political party or other organization is not as protected as they would be in America.
How about these then:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new
The last one from Cato is a bit wonky though, since it combines something they call "economic freedom" with "human freedom".
-
I am not going to spend much time reading and analyzing reports which are not even specific about freedom of expression which is what we are talking about here.
The fact is that in Spain the authorities suppress speech in circumstances I cannot imagine happening in America. I have given examples and can give plenty more if you want them. I have never heard of such a thing in America. If you have examples then let's see them. -
Let's try to keep some manners and respect. OK?
Bus stopped in Madrid because of its message: https://www.elespanol.com/espana/politica/20170228/197230853_0.html
In Barcelona they have been fined for "inciting hatred" https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/activistas-HazteOir-Diagonal-Barcelona-esloganes_0_874213069.html
In Valencia the police detained them and removed the messages displayed on the bus. https://www.valenciabonita.es/2019/03/05/autobus-hazteoir-valencia/
Spanish Government says all apology of Franco regime is forbiden by law: https://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-gobierno-avisa-ley-prohibe-toda-exaltacion-franquismo-inminencia-20-20181116154938.html
One more; https://www.elplural.com/autonomias/andalucia/la-junta-condena-la-exaltacion-del-franquismo-en-el-entierro-de-utrera-molina_102630102
I could go on and on.
The fact is that there is nothing like that in America, Not even close. -
That is rather bizarre from my perspective. One of the things I run into in my RC airplane hobby is the fact that in Germany and maybe other places it's illegal to display a swastika. This results in models of German WWII aircraft missing that or having it altered, leaving the plane looking incomplete and not authentic. It's a bit stupid I think to sweep history under the rug or revise it in the present. For it to be illegal to make the model look the way the real one looked is dumb.
-
I have lived in America for a quite some years and have never seen anything like that. If it happens as often as in Spain then I am sure you can give us some samples of the authorities preventing the expression of speech it does not condone. I can give many more examples of how bad the situation is in Spain. (Culturally we still have not accepted the concept that speech we find objectionable must still be protected.) Many political candidates need police escort because they are threatened.
Let us see similar cases in America of the authorities favoring one ideology over another. -
Quote
One of the things I run into in my RC airplane hobby is the fact that in Germany and maybe other places it's illegal to display a swastika. This results in models of German WWII aircraft missing that
Well on an Plane who should look historic its no problem to put a swastika on it. Trust me if you could watch German Speaking TV your would see 24/7 on different Channel some Nazi Stuff. Even the TV Channel who claim to be Austrian show and speak Nazi stuff every time.
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
[RL: BOLD added to quote ]
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
In the USA, hate speech and libel are very different legally speaking. Hate speech is covered by the First Amendment where as The Supreme court had upheld libel cases thereby making libel an exception to free speech.
The US Supreme court on multiple occasion reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects even hate speech. There are many references to that but this one is rather recent and it was decided unanimously:
Washington post, June 19, 2017, Article:"Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
Another supporting document from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
On the other hand, libel has specific legal meaning and Libel laws has been "tested" in the Supreme court in the sense that it had upheld libel cases but less clear cut lines.
Definition (from Cornell University Law Library)
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
reference here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel
I said "less clear cut" because libel against a public official has a different threshold than libel again common people (1964, New York Times v. Sullivan). To clarify: if I am a public figure and sue someone for libeling me, I must prove "actual malice" committed by that someone; whereas, if I am not a public figure, I don't have to prove malice.
Notice I used public official in reference to the ruling in the prior paragraph, and use public figure for the rest of the paragraph. I am not a lawyer but I read a lot. From all my readings, public figures considered they have the same burden of proof, but it has to my knowledge not been court-tested that they do need to prove malice .
reference here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
-
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
[RL: BOLD added to quote ]
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
In the USA, hate speech and libel are very different legally speaking. Hate speech is covered by the First Amendment where as The Supreme court had upheld libel cases thereby making libel an exception to free speech.
The US Supreme court on multiple occasion reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects even hate speech. There are many references to that but this one is rather recent and it was decided unanimously:
Washington post, June 19, 2017, Article:"Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
Another supporting document from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
On the other hand, libel has specific legal meaning and Libel laws has been "tested" in the Supreme court in the sense that it had upheld libel cases but less clear cut lines.
Definition (from Cornell University Law Library)
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
reference here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc. -
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
-
The other thing is libel leaves you free to express your opinion, hate speech from what I've read absolutely does not.
-
QuotePrison for 19 year old with hobby knife
https://www.tv2fyn.dk/artikel/faengsel-til-19-arig-med-hobbykniv
The High Court in Odense today tightened the verdict for the 19-year-old Haris Cehic, who had forgotten two hobby knives in his car. The young man has to go to prison for seven days, settled the court. Otherwise, the district court had initially fined him a fine of DKK 3,000.
...
The police were also on site and during a routine search the two hobby knives found his car. According to Haris Cehic it was knives that he had forgotten after work.
They changed it back to a fine again, but still, don't bring a pocket knife if you're going to Denmark.
that was 10 years ago when the judges were trying to make a point that they did not like the politicians interfering with
their job by making laws with minimum sentences
-
No sure what you mean. All words are made up. If there is some law that prohibits hate speech it's meaning is well defined in the law and by the praxis of the courts.Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
In a discussion on the internet it is problematic that it might be considered a vague and undefined term and people might be talking about different things. But here we were talking about how freedom of speech were somehow much more limited in the EU than in the US so the legal definitions seems like the most relevant.The other thing is libel leaves you free to express your opinion, hate speech from what I've read absolutely does not.
Not if that opinion is libellous. -
No sure what you mean. All words are made up. If there is some law that prohibits hate speech it's meaning is well defined in the law and by the praxis of the courts.Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
In a discussion on the internet it is problematic that it might be considered a vague and undefined term and people might be talking about different things. But here we were talking about how freedom of speech were somehow much more limited in the EU than in the US so the legal definitions seems like the most relevant.The other thing is libel leaves you free to express your opinion, hate speech from what I've read absolutely does not.
Not if that opinion is libellous.
Even if it's "libellous". Your opinion is not libel. -
that was 10 years ago when the judges were trying to make a point that they did not like the politicians interfering with
Wasn't the problem that the knife law had recently been restricted? As I wrote before, they changed the sentence back to a fine again but the conclusion was that it was illegal to have one of those snap-off blade knifes in the car, no?
their job by making laws with minimum sentences -
Even if it's "libellous". Your opinion is not libel.
I'm no lawyer but I would be surprised if appending "in my opinion" is going to make a difference. "Xxx is a paedophile and molested yyy, zzz and thirty other children, in my opinion that is." If you gonna publish that I would recommend you make sure you can back it up with evidence first.
I'm most familiar with the Swedish law and it only prohibits threatening or expressing contempt for certain minorities, i.e. agitating. It does not prevent an objective and constructive discussion or statements made in private. So people are basically free to express their opinion. -
that was 10 years ago when the judges were trying to make a point that they did not like the politicians interfering with
Wasn't the problem that the knife law had recently been restricted? As I wrote before, they changed the sentence back to a fine again but the conclusion was that it was illegal to have one of those snap-off blade knifes in the car, no?
their job by making laws with minimum sentences
recently 10 years ago, the politicians were signaling "tough on crime" by making a minimum prison time for carrying a knife without a valid reason, so the courts protested that they couldn't use common
sense but had to give a minimum sentence by doing it in the most ridicules cases -
Why doesn't the local big bro branch just shut down or block the servers that supply this terro material,
so the little people can't click on by accident, and giggle at it over too many beers,
inadvertently getting themselves into supposed 'illegal viewing' come imperial entanglements
Perhaps the online enforcement crowd tracking(or paycheck perving)all the p0rn and child pedo floggers, and spam and scam vending sites, for YEARS on end
can lend a hand
Maybe they'll do better at hunting down this milder hate/ terro material instead...
-
...
[RL bold added]
...
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc.
re: "Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception [,] I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech."
Injury (harm, damage) vs Expression (of idea)
Per US Supreme Court ruling, hate speech is an expression of a view point (an idea). Limiting it is a "view point discrimination" which is prohibited. [ Switching to my opinion instead of per court ruling ] The key word in the Cornell Law Library definition of libel is injury, libel is an act intended to cause injury. Hate speech may make someone feel bad, but feeling is not quantifiable or provable. So, you cannot possibly show in court that actual damage was done by said speech.
Per Cornell Law definition, libel is a form of defamation, it helps to also look at legal definition of defamation (again from Cornell Law Library):
"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
re:view point & view point discrimiation -- Quoting the US Supreme Court:
"JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, agreed that 15 U. S. C. §1052(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a) With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–829. The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether—within the relevant subject category—the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” §1052(a); and within that category... ... ..."
Source of quote is this Supreme Court paper: "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATESPATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
-
Even if it's "libellous". Your opinion is not libel.
I'm no lawyer but I would be surprised if appending "in my opinion" is going to make a difference. "Xxx is a paedophile and molested yyy, zzz and thirty other children, in my opinion that is." If you gonna publish that I would recommend you make sure you can back it up with evidence first.
I'm most familiar with the Swedish law and it only prohibits threatening or expressing contempt for certain minorities, i.e. agitating. It does not prevent an objective and constructive discussion or statements made in private. So people are basically free to express their opinion.
Right. Just adding "in my opinion", or publishing under an opinion section, is not a defense to libel. The thing is that the burden of proof as noted above is different for individuals and public facing people. Politicians, celebrities, media companies, people you might expect others to be aware of you don't need to prove they intended malice, it just doesn't matter. The reach of their words is great enough that they need to be sure they were right before saying anything. A recent example would be some high school kids were reported as being racists and provoking minorities. Didn't happen and most of the outlets are being sued for it. For individuals with no real reach you need to prove malice. The statements need to be published. The entity claiming libel needs to prove the statement was untrue, which isn't always easy either. Another recent-ish example of this is elon musk calling one man working to save kids in the cave system a pedo. The guy supposedly sued for libel but that'd be a tough thing to prove. You could present a criminal record with no pedophilia charges but otherwise... For individuals there typically need to be damages also.
Comparing libel to hate speech laws some countries have isn't 1:1, a more apt comparison is to our slander laws... This is typically just speech. So to prove it you'd want witnesses, maybe a recording of the conversation(if legal). I THINK you always have to prove damages as well but I'm not sure.
Here you can, and we usually believe you should be able to, say anything you'd like outside of trying to cause physical harm to people. If you suddenly start yelling a bunch of racist obscenities at a group and the group attacks you there could be reduced charges for those individuals. If someone calls you an asshole you can not hit them and claim they provoked you. Well you could but it wouldn't work out for you. Telling people to attack someone is illegal, trying to make people fight you is illegal, a call to action that can cause bodily harm is illegal. If you're just saying things, even hateful/racist things, it's legally ok. Plenty of examples of racists, white/black/brown/whatever, all over the place recently and older saying vile things here and reasonable people just walk away from them.