Spanish constitution defines freedom of speech as "no censorship". You can't stop someone from publishing something but you very much can make them legally responsible for what they publish. Libel and defamation are still illegal under freedom of speech, right?
In Canada its not freedom of speech but rather freedom of expression when the expression doesn't infringe on others' freedom from hate which I'm so much happier with. Why the fuck Americans celebrate their freedom to be a nazi or whatever makes absolutely zero sense to me
Do you not see how easily "freedom from hate" can be subverted by, I dunno, Zionists? I don't think Canada has huge issues with that but the UK is horrific.
Hopefully I can cunningham's law a more intelligent response, but libel and defamation aren't "illegal" as in the police will arrest you for it, it's a civil violation, so the target of that libel would have to sue you for it.
Different countries have different bars for proving defamation. Famously, British media avoids calling drunk people drunk, and instead uses "tired and emotional" or similar, because if you say someone was drunk, but you can't prove it, you are liable if they sue. Contrast that to the US, where if you sue someone for calling you drunk, you have to prove that they would know that they are lying.
Both methods are subject to abuse, but since suing costs money, it's more often a weapon of the privileged, so I prefer the US method.
Yeah, but I suppose even then, you probably wouldnt be hunted down by the police for slandering a random person, it would only be if you insulted someone wealthy/powerful?
In Spain people were also prosecuted for threats and promoting terrorism. One raper was sentenced to prison for praising ETA and insulting the King but he escaped to Belgium which denied Spain extradition because insulting Spanish king is not a crime there.
Being prosecuted for insulting the King is of course stupid and this law should be changed but this and praising ETA are just more examples of this you can't legally say in Spain. The law can't prevent you from saying it but it can punish you afterwards.
It kinda does. Otherwise, what you're advocating is State Censorship.
The 1st Amendment, as written, isn't just the right to speak but to publish and proselytize and (critically) assemble. You do not merely have the right to speak, but the right to be heard. You cannot be kept out of public spaces because of your personal opinions or expressed beliefs. You cannot be denied peers to hear you on the grounds that too many people with the same opinion constitute a hazard. And you cannot be squelched strictly on the grounds of an ideological dispute.
Obviously, this is the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. When written, the provision didn't extend to women or children or enslaved people or native people or Jews and Catholics. But over time, populations updated the enforcement and expanded provisions, such that it did include all of the above so long as you weren't saying anything to mark you out as an Enemy of the State.
shrug We have a set of beliefs and we have a set of actual policies. The gulf between is the contradiction that modern imperialism creates.
The difference is that you have the right get up on the soap box, but you are not guaranteed an audience once you get there. The Freedom of speech only says that you can't be denied your own life for what you say, not that you are entitled to people to agree with you.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/005/3mLydMU.png
I mean people have the right to ignore you. I never claimed that people would face incarcerations if they don't. Or have you never seen a crazy guy on a street corner ringing a bell and saying "the end is nigh!"?
"freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence"
Sic Semper Tyrannis
You could replace the picture and name with that of another tinpot dictator like Trump, and it would still fit.
Spanish constitution defines freedom of speech as "no censorship". You can't stop someone from publishing something but you very much can make them legally responsible for what they publish. Libel and defamation are still illegal under freedom of speech, right?
In Canada its not freedom of speech but rather freedom of expression when the expression doesn't infringe on others' freedom from hate which I'm so much happier with. Why the fuck Americans celebrate their freedom to be a nazi or whatever makes absolutely zero sense to me
Do you not see how easily "freedom from hate" can be subverted by, I dunno, Zionists? I don't think Canada has huge issues with that but the UK is horrific.
I mean, looking at the USA kind of shows that "freedom of speech" isn't really helping ya there either lol
Canada and the UK are different countries, that's a bit like saying:
"hey look just because your apples aren't suffering from orange blight doesn't mean you shouldn't be worried about the banana starmer virus"
Its possible the canadian rules are just better or even have their own set of unique problems
Hopefully I can cunningham's law a more intelligent response, but libel and defamation aren't "illegal" as in the police will arrest you for it, it's a civil violation, so the target of that libel would have to sue you for it.
Different countries have different bars for proving defamation. Famously, British media avoids calling drunk people drunk, and instead uses "tired and emotional" or similar, because if you say someone was drunk, but you can't prove it, you are liable if they sue. Contrast that to the US, where if you sue someone for calling you drunk, you have to prove that they would know that they are lying.
Both methods are subject to abuse, but since suing costs money, it's more often a weapon of the privileged, so I prefer the US method.
Over here it's very much a criminal offense, so this only applies to some countries.
Yeah, but I suppose even then, you probably wouldnt be hunted down by the police for slandering a random person, it would only be if you insulted someone wealthy/powerful?
The police don't hunt you down unless the victim filed a criminal complaint with them first. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antragsdelikt
Except for politicians, for some reason they're exempt though there seem to be plans to change this because it's incredibly unpopular.
In Spain people were also prosecuted for threats and promoting terrorism. One raper was sentenced to prison for praising ETA and insulting the King but he escaped to Belgium which denied Spain extradition because insulting Spanish king is not a crime there.
Being prosecuted for insulting the King is of course stupid and this law should be changed but this and praising ETA are just more examples of this you can't legally say in Spain. The law can't prevent you from saying it but it can punish you afterwards.
Yes, free speech is just about beeing able to voice your political opinion
Not just political
Freedom of speech does not mean the Freedom to be heard.
It kinda does. Otherwise, what you're advocating is State Censorship.
The 1st Amendment, as written, isn't just the right to speak but to publish and proselytize and (critically) assemble. You do not merely have the right to speak, but the right to be heard. You cannot be kept out of public spaces because of your personal opinions or expressed beliefs. You cannot be denied peers to hear you on the grounds that too many people with the same opinion constitute a hazard. And you cannot be squelched strictly on the grounds of an ideological dispute.
Obviously, this is the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. When written, the provision didn't extend to women or children or enslaved people or native people or Jews and Catholics. But over time, populations updated the enforcement and expanded provisions, such that it did include all of the above so long as you weren't saying anything to mark you out as an Enemy of the State.
shrug We have a set of beliefs and we have a set of actual policies. The gulf between is the contradiction that modern imperialism creates.
The difference is that you have the right get up on the soap box, but you are not guaranteed an audience once you get there. The Freedom of speech only says that you can't be denied your own life for what you say, not that you are entitled to people to agree with you.
If the police can arrest someone for being in the audience, your freedom of speech is functionally repressed
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/005/3mLydMU.png I mean people have the right to ignore you. I never claimed that people would face incarcerations if they don't. Or have you never seen a crazy guy on a street corner ringing a bell and saying "the end is nigh!"?
That's not what's at issue. Idi Amin isn't threatening to change the channel.
Idi Amin was a funny guy. Shame about all the other stuff.
Unconventional chef
Oh look, current UK policy.
Roight! Off ta gaol with ye lad!
Dark 😔
Literally 😔
You're not extinct?
Oh yeah... Sorry. I mean, 💀
That's what the Pedophile of the US of America wants!
This should be more shitpost-y. Have you tried a deep-fried filter and some mlg images?
Well we can all be thankful we weren’t born in Africa
I meam that's how it was after the founding of the USA. See the sedition act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_King_of_Scotland_(film)
Clearly Idi Amin read Animal Farm.
Clearly not, since he was famously illiterate. But they say you are what you eat, so Idk Amin was definitely an intellectual
Damn, you got me at the end there.