How far does Free-Speech go?

[M.2]

With all the talk of free speech these days, with Milo's crusade finally exposing the limits to free expression in USA, I was wondering how far one can go in other countries without getting shut down.

 

According to the UN:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

"In adopting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia and the Netherlands insisted on reservations to Article 19 insofar as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing broadcasting"

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

 

 

It is quite clear that every country in the World has a dofferent approach to the subject, and nobody really takes the decrees of the UN seriously.

Germany, in my opinion has the toughest laws in the Western World. Their set of laws even has a name: Volksverhetzung (incitement of the people). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

I had to share this one just for laughs. Malta has only 1 single law limiting speech:

Blasphemy against the Roman Catholic church is illegal in Malta

Chechia has a peculiar one: Censorship is not permitted.

 

I might add more to this topic as I continue my Research.

 

As a general rule to where countries draw the line:

- All countries: advocacy for violence, blasphemy, racist speech...

- North America: Racist Speech seems to be the only thing they are really sensitive to

- South America: Advocating for the toppling of the state or disrespecting the rulers are frowned upon, but loosely enforced.

- Western Europe: They can virtually jail you for anything.

- Southern Europe: Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are off limits, but anything else is in practice fair game.

- Eastern Europe: Hate speech against foreign heads of state, religion or an ethnic group are illegal, but hardly ever enforced.

- North Africa: Anything can get you killed, but speech against Allah especially

- Sub-Sahara: Impossible to generalise

- Middle East: Allah. Nothing else is enforced in practice

- Israel: Criticism of the state of Israel is, although not exactly illegal, strongly frowned upon.

- Central Asia: Speech against religion, the stability of the State, and Allah are no go

- East Asia: With the exception of China, nobody really cares, since nobody really breaks any of those laws.

- South Asia: Heads of State, Religion are off limits, but hardly ever enforced.

- Oceania: Nobody cares.

[Brodaviing]

Dutchman here, here's our free speech in a nutshell:

 

 

Two "parts" of our constitution apply to this subject, I've provided rough translations:

 

Artikel 1: "Gelijke behandeling en Discriminatie verbod" (Equal treatment and prohibition of discrimination)

 

 

It states:

"All who themselves find in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination on account of Religion, beliefs, political ideology, race, gender or on any other grounds whatsoever, is prohibited."

 

 

Artikel 7: "Vrijheid van meningsuiting, censuurverbod." (Freedom of speech, censorship prohibition)

 

This one states multiple things, only the first one is relevant though:

 

1. No one needs prior permission to publicly express thoughts or feelings by press, as long as one does not break another law

 

 

So, you are allowed to speak your thoughts and feelings as long as you don't break any other laws doing so.

 

In practise, mostly muslims and those from muslim majority countries try to prosecute anyone for "Discrimination". Usually the prosecuted person is Geert Wilders. Hell, they dragged him to court for asking his crowd if they wanted more or less morrocans.

 

He's also the only person who ever gets dragged to court for "wrong speak" as far as I know.

I think a lot of people don't publicly voice their opinions and judging by the amount of people still bothering to vote, not a lot of people are awake.

[Rventurelli]

Dutchman here, here's our free speech in a nutshell:

 

 

Two "parts" of our constitution apply to this subject, I've provided rough translations:

 

Artikel 1: "Gelijke behandeling en Discriminatie verbod" (Equal treatment and prohibition of discrimination)

 

 

It states:

"All who themselves find in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination on account of Religion, beliefs, political ideology, race, gender or on any other grounds whatsoever, is prohibited."

 

 

Artikel 7: "Vrijheid van meningsuiting, censuurverbod." (Freedom of speech, censorship prohibition)

 

This one states multiple things, only the first one is relevant though:

 

1. No one needs prior permission to publicly express thoughts or feelings by press, as long as one does not break another law

 

 

So, you are allowed to speak your thoughts and feelings as long as you don't break any other laws doing so.

 

In practise, mostly muslims and those from muslim majority countries try to prosecute anyone for "Discrimination". Usually the prosecuted person is Geert Wilders. Hell, they dragged him to court for asking his crowd if they wanted more or less morrocans.

 

He's also the only person who ever gets dragged to court for "wrong speak" as far as I know.

I think a lot of people don't publicly voice their opinions and judging by the amount of people still bothering to vote, not a lot of people are awake.

I am not sure if that has changed over time, but the Netherlands had this image, at least until recently, that absolutely everything is/was permitted, even sex in the middle of the streets after 2200 or something like that.

 

I am sure that this vision is and was exaggerated, but how is the general sentiment of the populous in so far as what they are/are not allowed to do?

[Jsbrads]

Milo isn't even close to traversing a line. Free speech is a right and I don't care what Canadians think is free speech.

I'm down to No shouting Fire in a crowded theater.

And if a guy shouts "Let's beat that guy up!" Only the people who touch the guy should be punished for a beating. Murderers should be executed only.

Only the people foolish enough to commit a crime should be punished for it, not loud mouthed politician types.

[Yamayamauchiman]

I wipe my behind with the UN's declarations and any enforced laws by semi sovereign countries.

Free speech is just another side of the coin of freedom. Literally nothing is off limits and if you are enforced upon for saying unwanted things, you get to defend yourself with whichever means necessary.

[os.motic]

You can say whatever the fuck you want any time and anyone who tells you otherwise can fuck off. 

 

But there may be repercussions. Hopefully not. 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎04‎. ‎27‎. at 5:46 PM, Yamayamauchiman said:

I wipe my behind with the UN's declarations and any enforced laws by semi sovereign countries.

Most eloquently put...

7 hours ago, os.motic said:

You can say whatever the fuck you want any time and anyone who tells you otherwise can fuck off. 

...truly a disarming argument indeed

[Meister]

The only country that I know of which has actual freedom of speech is the US.

It's also the only country with a constitutional right to bear arms.

These two rights are the foundation of a free society.

The fact that nobody else on earth has those rights is really all you need to know.

That's why we need to protect our borders at all costs.

 

Little trivia: Germany criminally prosecutes half a million citizens each year for speech violations ... The country only has 80 million inhabitants.

When it comes to free speech the EU is a joke. They think 1984 wasn't a warning but instructions.

[PerryT]

I don't see why any human should ever get to define the boundaries of free speech for any other! Our voice is our own personal property!  Nuff said. 

[M.2]

32 minutes ago, PerryT said:

I don't see why any human should ever get to define the boundaries of free speech for any other! Our voice is our own personal property!  Nuff said. 

There is the ideal, and then there is real life. 

[PerryT]

17 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

There is the ideal, and then there is real life. 

Who is ordained to objectively determine the extent of free speech unless you believe there are other humans who have such authority? And if that's so, who gives them such authority? Those who cross over from words to actions, now that's a different story. 

[M.2]

21 minutes ago, PerryT said:

Who is ordained to objectively determine the extent of free speech unless you believe there are other humans who have such authority? And if that's so, who gives them such authority? Those who cross over from words to actions, now that's a different story. 

What do you think? Who usually gives authority to humans?

[PerryT]

1 minute ago, Mishi2 said:

What do you think? Who usually gives authority to humans?

Speaking only for myself, I would say free speech is an extension of free will as a divine right given by God, but that's my belief. I do not believe God gives ultimate authority to any individual to reign over others. If that were the case we would not have the capacity to think and reach our own conclusions.

[M.2]

7 minutes ago, PerryT said:

Speaking only for myself, I would say free speech is an extension of free will as a divine right given by God, but that's my belief. I do not believe God gives ultimate authority to any individual to reign over others. If that were the case we would not have the capacity to think and reach our own conclusions.

Well, believe it or not, the US constitution agrees with you. So does the swiss constitution as a fun fact. However as you say, we humans have free will, and can give away our freedoms anytime. And of course, give away we do. As I listed above, de facto free speech only exists in very few places in the world, with America being one, where they are fighting the culture war at the moment. Let's hope the americans don't surrender their freedom of speech as easily as most of the west did.

[PerryT]

Just now, Mishi2 said:

Well, believe it or not, the US constitution agrees with you. So does the swiss constitution as a fun fact. However as you say, we humans have free will, and can give away our freedoms anytime. And of course, give away we do. As I listed above, de facto free speech only exists in very few places in the world, with America being one, where they are fighting the culture war at the moment. Let's hope the americans don't surrender their freedom of speech as easily as most of the west did.

I certainly agree with you there, but I would like to clarify something else as well. One cannot fundamentally give their freedom away. You can create a social contract with defined rules and consequences, but so long as you exist you are inextricably free.

[M.2]

7 minutes ago, PerryT said:

I certainly agree with you there, but I would like to clarify something else as well. One cannot fundamentally give their freedom away. You can create a social contract with defined rules and consequences, but so long as you exist you are inextricably free.

I don't disagree. But have you heard of possessed people? 

[PerryT]

16 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't disagree. But have you heard of possessed people? 

I would say possessed people are less common and are more often just lazy. When individuals submit to the will of the masses, or a leader, by default have chosen to enter a contract. It doesn't matter whether they are aware of that fact or not. If a law is passed tomorrow, and you believe you must obey, you would be making a choice. The more you acknowledge that you are truly free, and let go of your fear, you see through more and more illusions. You become stronger.

[M.2]

2 minutes ago, PerryT said:

I would say possessed people are less common and are more often just lazy. When individuals submit to the will of the masses, or a leader, by default have chosen to enter a contract. It doesn't matter whether they are aware of that fact or not. If a law is passed tomorrow, and you believe you must obey, you would be making a choice. The more you acknowledge that you are truly free, and let go of your fear, you see through more and more illusions. You become stronger.

As someone who knows waaaay too much about demonic possession, I say you hit the nail on the head with the contract analogy. Fully possessed people are effectively stripped of their free will. They could regain their free will if they wanted to, but they just can't want to, since they have no will. 

This has gotten a bit off topic, still it has a lot to do with free will, so I highly recommend you do some research into demonic possession in the vatican archives. Very... informative to say the least.
 

[PerryT]

2 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

As someone who knows waaaay too much about demonic possession, I say you hit the nail on the head with the contract analogy. Fully possessed people are effectively stripped of their free will. They could regain their free will if they wanted to, but they just can't want to, since they have no will. 

This has gotten a bit off topic, still it has a lot to do with free will, so I highly recommend you do some research into demonic possession in the vatican archives. Very... informative to say the least.
 

I suppose I will look into that. Any book recommendations. 

[AraiBob]

Hi,

Let me describe it another way. Me and a friend were bar hopping, looking for girls. At the first place we went, I ordered a beer, as did he. He proceeded to drink his. I let mine sit. As we started to leave, he said "You did not drink your beer!" I said, "I have to buy it. I don't have to drink it."

My point is that as long as I am allowed to ignore those speaking and saying things I am not interested in, let them speak. But if I am forced to stop, salute, listen and agree? Nope. Not going to happen.

If they expect the 'right' to speak, they need to respect my right to "Not Listen'.

[Worlok]

Free speech is absolute. Crime requires harm and intent to do whatever caused that harm. 

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not illegal in the US and hasn't been for 50 years. It's a lie and you should look it up. If you think that you are being funny, than you can legally do so. If somebody gets hurt because of morons running in terror, then you had intent to do it when there wasn't a fire and you caused harm. You didn't have to trample anybody yourself, but it is ultimately your fault. If nobody gets hurt, then people just think that you are a jerk and you might get thrown out.

Threats are perfectly legal. There is the separation of threats and "legitimate" threats. "if I see that guy again I'll kick his ass" is not a legitimate threat because people say it and very obviously don't mean it. If somebody says "I'm going to kill you" and pulls out a knife in a clearly threatening manner, then you can shoot them in the face in self defense. If your mom says, "I'm going to kill you" after you break her lamp on accident, then we all know that it's not legitimately a threat, probably that you are grounded and might receive a slap upside the head (legal parental punishment)

Saying something that somebody else decides to act on is perfectly fine. If the media says that Trump is the next Hitler and somebody tries to assassinate him, that is simply the choice of the killer and the media has no responsibility. If the media tells people to try to kill him, then they may be complicit in any acts to try and carry it out. They are complicit if it can be argued in court that by telling people to do it that they intended for them to try. If it cannot be argued that they had intent for people to try, then it is not a crime. They will just be condemned as a bunch of scumbags... which, despite not actually telling people to do that, the things that the media is doing or saying is causing people to condemn them.

If James Bond makes it to the room where the villain is and the villain secretly has a computer in the room that will launch a nuke upon a particular word being spoke, If bond is then tricked into saying the word, then Bond is actually launching a nuke, but had no intent to speak any secret code word or to launch any weapon at anybody. The villain is entirely responsible.

Speech is ABSOLUTELY free. However, using speech to commit a crime simply means that committing the crime was wrong and not using speech. Nothing is wrong or illegal unless the action causes harm and there was intent for the action to occur. Clinton Intended to do everything that lead up to emails being moved to private servers. So, while the law doesn't require immediate intent, there is intent down the line, which is where the illegality can be determined. At some point, some intent for some action becomes illegal or immoral. However, the speech itself is never illegal or immoral.