Wildly Off Topic: Articles 11 + 13 & Permissible Bounds of Free Speech

[rando]

This could be just as fun as the last piece of legislation we discussed here.  Here is what the UN© expert on free speech thought of these pieces of legislation that heavily impacts web usage in the EU©.  For those unaware of the impact these would have.  Once again they force site owners to follow the strictest possible implementation of policing with no solid interpretation of permissible bounds.  

 

Both of these articles of legislation passed a major hurdle today.  Final votes are expected in the coming months.  

 

 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, rando said:

This could be just as fun as the last piece of legislation we discussed here.  Here is what the UN© expert on free speech thought of these pieces of legislation that heavily impacts web usage in the EU©.  For those unaware of the impact these would have.  Once again they force site owners to follow the strictest possible implementation of policing with no solid interpretation of permissible bounds.  

 

Both of these articles of legislation passed a major hurdle today.  Final votes are expected in the coming months.  

 

 

Here's the thing about Freedom of Speech. It's a lot like being pregnant. Either a woman is pregnant or she isn't, it's an absolute. One can't be "somewhat pregnant" nor can one be "pregnant under some conditions". Same with Freedom of Speech. You either have it or your don't. The minute it's abridged in any way, you've lost it. The Canadians lost Freedom of Speech some years ago, and now it's happening to the EU. After working towards freedom for all peoples for generations, the pendulum is swinging back the other way and the world is heading into the dark abyss of totalitarianism once more.  

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Here's the thing about Freedom of Speech. It's a lot like being pregnant. Either a woman is pregnant or she isn't, it's an absolute. One can't be "somewhat pregnant" nor can one be "pregnant under some conditions". Same with Freedom of Speech. You either have it or your don't. The minute it's abridged in any way, you've lost it. The Canadians lost Freedom of Speech some years ago, and now it's happening to the EU. After working towards freedom for all peoples for generations, the pendulum is swinging back the other way and the world is heading into the dark abyss of totalitarianism once more.  

 

While the freedom of speech in the US Constitution is pretty good, it's not absolute.  There's a famous sentence from Justice Holmes that it doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[mansr]

Most of Europe has never had freedom of speech to the extent enshrined in the US 1st Amendment. It's all a bit wishy-washy, and several countries have for a long time banned specific types of speech, for instance denial of the Holocaust. It is only getting worse, and nobody seems to care as long as they have their bread and circuses.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

While the freedom of speech in the US Constitution is pretty good, it's not absolute.  There's a famous sentence from Justice Holmes that it doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Actions, including speech, can and should be illegal if they are intended to cause immediate physical harm. Context matters.

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

While the freedom of speech in the US Constitution is pretty good, it's not absolute.  There's a famous sentence from Justice Holmes that it doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

I've been waiting for someone to make just that example. That's not a freedom of speech issue. That's an "instigating a panic by turning-in a false alarm" issue. In fact, you can stand in an empty building and shout "Fire" to the top of your lungs. Similarly, you can do the same  in a crowded room as long as everyone within earshot is "in on it". Slander and Libel aren't freedom of-speech issues either. You are free in the United States to do either, however the injured party does have the right, in a civil court to sue for damages. 

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Most of Europe has never had freedom of speech to the extent enshrined in the US 1st Amendment. It's all a bit wishy-washy, and several countries have for a long time banned specific types of speech, for instance denial of the Holocaust. It is only getting worse, and nobody seems to care as long as they have their bread and circuses.

Throughout history, that's always the side door by which totalitarianism enters the picture. However, we, as Americans, shouldn't take our 1st Amendment rights (actually the entire Bill of Rights) for granted. The 21st Amendment to the Constitution in the early 1930s showed that contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Constitutional Amendments can be struck down. 

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I've been waiting for someone to make just that asinine example. That's not a freedom of speech issue. That's an "instigating a panic by turning-in a false alarm" issue. In fact, you can stand in an empty building and shout "Fire" to the top of your lungs. Similarly, you can do the same  in a crowded room as long as everyone within earshot is "in on it". Slander and Libel aren't freedom of-speech issues either. You are free in the United States to do either, however the injured party does have the right, in a civil court to sue for damages. 

 

You may think it asinine, but in fact it has been part of the Court's thinking in cases involving whether someone is exercising freedom of political speech or inciting to riot. Inciting to riot was a popular way to break up civil rights rallies in the early 1960s, for example.

 

Similarly with libel and slander laws - what is possibly the foremost case in the past half century involved General Westmoreland suing a media outlet over criticism of his conduct during the Vietnam War.

 

These are real issues.  You can't just define them away. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

Slander and Libel aren't freedom of-speech issues either. You are free in the United States to do either, however the injured party does have the right, in a civil court to sue for damages. 

The important distinction here is that the speech itself is protected whereas any harm it causes isn't.

[Jud]

Just now, mansr said:

The important distinction here is that the speech itself is protected whereas any harm it causes isn't.

 

Sorry, but at least in the US that's not the distinction.  Someone's reputation and livelihood may certainly be harmed by non-libelous reporting.

 

These are not easy distinctions, at least not in many very real scenarios. 

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Actions, including speech, can and should be illegal if they are intended to cause immediate physical harm. Context matters.

No, context shouldn't matter. The minute one starts thinking like that, one is in danger of losing their freedom of speech. The First Amendment is quite clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

 

Notice an absence of ifs ands or buts in that Amendment. 

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You may think it asinine, but in fact it has been part of the Court's thinking in cases involving whether someone is exercising freedom of political speech or inciting to riot. Inciting to riot was a popular way to break up civil rights rallies in the early 1960s, for example.

 

Similarly with libel and slander laws - what is possibly the foremost case in the past half century involved General Westmoreland suing a media outlet over criticism of his conduct during the Vietnam War.

 

These are real issues.  You can't just define them away. 

I disagree. Like I said, you either have freedom of speech or your don't. Yes, Inciting a riot is against the law, but one has to be careful how one applies the law. It's not the speech that must be abridged, it's the  effect that the speech has upon the listeners. 

[Jud]

Just now, gmgraves said:

No, context shouldn't matter. The minute one starts thinking like that, one is in danger of losing their freedom of speech. The First Amendment is quite clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

 

Notice an absence of ifs ands or buts in that Amendment. 

 

Since we live in a real and not a neat conceptual world, where the distinction between speech and action is often difficult to make, and the truth can cause actual harm, no Justice of the US Supreme Court has ever once agreed with you.

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

The important distinction here is that the speech itself is protected whereas any harm it causes isn't.

Agreed!

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Throughout history, that's always the side door by which totalitarianism enters the picture. However, we, as Americans, shouldn't take our 1st Amendment rights (actually the entire Bill of Rights) for granted. The 21st Amendment to the Constitution in the early 1930s showed that contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Constitutional Amendments can be struck down. 

Constitutional changes should absolutely be possible (through means other than revolution). The striking down of an amendment isn't conceptually any different from adding it in the first place. Both acts are an alteration of the constitution. What sets the constitution apart from regular legislation is that it much harder to change and automatically takes precedence over any conflicting act of Congress or court decision.

[Ralf11]

not only that but the Court (or part of it) has opined that the closest Constitutional right to an absolute right is the Petition Clause - so not the Freedom of Speech part...

 

George, maybe you are making  policy argument not a legal one - policy is what your want; the law is what you get

[Jud]

Just now, gmgraves said:

I disagree. Like I said, you either have freedom of speech or your don't. Yes, Inciting a riot is against the law, but one has to be careful how one applies the law. It's not the speech that must be abridged, it's the  effect that the speech has upon the listeners. 

 

George, you're really doing a lot worse at this than most first year law students.

 

You are certainly free to hold onto your opinions, but the distinctions you're trying to make break down instantly in many real world cases. 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

policy is what your want; the law is what you get

You can't always get what you want.

[rando]

Anyhoo, the reason I started this here is a certain other EU proclamation structuring online business conduct caught a lot of people off guard.  If this passes into law if someone in the EU linked to a show report that had music playing in the background our site owner could be on the line to pay for that usage.  Again, EU trying to make itself the world internet police.  

 

The constitution has nothing to do with the source of this.  Google's employee code of conduct might actually be more relevant if you need to work at this from an American angle.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, rando said:

Anyhoo, the reason I started this here is a certain other EU proclamation structuring online business conduct caught a lot of people off guard.  If this passes into law if someone in the EU linked to a show report that had music playing in the background our site owner could be on the line to pay for that usage.  Again, EU trying to make itself the world internet police.  

 

The constitution has nothing to do with the source of this.  Google's employee code of conduct might actually be more relevant if you need to work at this from an American angle.

The closest analogy in US terms is probably the CDA and its Section 230, the protections of the latter being sorely, apparently by intent, lacking in the current EU proposal.

[rando]

I don't feel the full reach of this has yet to be understood.  Can't see this being a short or long term small business friendly change no matter what it's scope.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

I disagree. Like I said, you either have freedom of speech or your don't. Yes, Inciting a riot is against the law, but one has to be careful how one applies the law. It's not the speech that must be abridged, it's the  effect that the speech has upon the listeners. 

 

So, you are free to say what you want so long as it's not against the law, then your freedom and your person may be curtailed if not incarcerated.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

The closest analogy in US terms is probably the CDA and its Section 230, the protections of the latter being sorely, apparently by intent, lacking in the current EU proposal.

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act essentially says you can't make the site responsible for what users choose to put on it. 

 

The proposed European legislation, so far as I can tell from the linked commentary (always hazardous not to have the originals), would apply to sites that have as one of their main functions the storage of copyrighted content. I don't see this site being included in that description.

 

But having just glanced at a commentary and not having seen the originals, that could easily be an incorrect conclusion.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

So, you are free to say what you want so long as it's not against the law, then your freedom and your person may be curtailed if not incarcerated.

No. I'm saying that freedom of speech means that anybody can say anything they want without fear of being prosecuted for their opinions, even though those opinions might be "politically incorrect". Now, If I say something to offend you, you have an equal right to challenge me on it, and maybe even poke me in the nose, although I'd like to think that most of us are sophisticated enough to realize that your rights end where my nose begins and vice versa! ?

[duxservit]

How’s about this one: “Your speech offends me, has triggered a biophysiochemical change in my brain, and has thus caused me physical harm... “ (etc, etc, blah, blah, blah). ?

 

Kidding aside, for you lawyers, would this hold up in court?