51–60 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absolutely not true, definitely not in the criminal sense. Politicians are always allowed to bring a civil suit against you over the things you've said, but the same is true in US.
It is criminal. > She stands accused of "insulting the president of the republic" and will stand trial on June 20 in Saint Omer, the prosecutor said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
October, 2018: "In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right: [the European Court of Human Rights] upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
Another account created 3 hours ago. Very interesting
A post is either relevant or not, regardless of when account was created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What game? Also, NA meaning North America? Why would Mexico and Canada be lumped into it, they don't have the same constitutional protections that USA gets.
League of Legends originally. It's a popular copypasta that gets used in esports discussions whenever an EU team beats an NA team harshly. "NA" as term in esports just refers to teams primarily based in the US or Canada.
I am seeing a lot of 0 karma and less than a day old accounts posting here. I think we may be getting botted.
Don't know why, but it's something that is happening and I also noticed that the same arguments are used Evey time
- EU is not free
- EU is descending into authoritarianism
- You can be jailed for saying things
- EU politicians are puppets working for some gray entities that want to cancel the right to privacy for (reason unknown)
and so on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe doesn’t have free speech because -
Because you can go to prison for saying things.
France's "hate speech" laws, which prohibit speech that is deemed to be insulting, threatening, or discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual orientation. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France)
Germany's NetzDG law, which requires social media platforms to remove content that is deemed to be hate speech or fake news within 24 hours of being notified. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act)
The United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act, which makes it a criminal offense to disclose certain types of information deemed to be sensitive to national security. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act)
Spain's "gag law," which restricts protests and demonstrations, and imposes fines for offenses such as insulting police officers. (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/1/spanish-gag-law-...)
Hungary's law against promoting migration, which criminalizes the publication or broadcast of materials that are deemed to promote illegal migration. (source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/hungary-passes...)
Belgium's Holocaust denial law, which makes it a criminal offense to publicly deny, minimize, or justify the Holocaust. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Holocaust_denial_law)
Sweden's "hets mot folkgrupp" law, which prohibits speech that is deemed to be hate speech or incitement to violence against certain groups of people, such as ethnic minorities or LGBT individuals. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_Action_League_of_S...)
Italy's "Lodo Alfano" law, which made it a criminal offense to publish transcripts of intercepted conversations, even if they exposed wrongdoing by public officials. (repealed)
Greece's "insulting the state" law, which makes it a criminal offense to insult the Greek flag, national anthem, or state symbols.
Austria's law against defamation of religions, which makes it a criminal offense to insult or denigrate the religious beliefs of others. (source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24739183)
Finland's law against ethnic agitation, which prohibits speech that is deemed to incite hatred or discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or national origin.(source: https://poliisi.fi/en/hate-crimes)
Poland's "Holocaust law," which criminalizes the attribution of Nazi crimes to the Polish state or people. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_In...)
Portugal's "apology for terrorism" law, which makes it a criminal offense to justify, glorify, or condone terrorism.
Romania's law against insult and defamation, which imposes fines or imprisonment for speech that is deemed to insult, defame, or threaten individuals or groups.
Slovakia's law against extremism, which prohibits the distribution of materials that promote extremist ideologies or activities.
Switzerland's anti-racism law, which makes it a criminal offense to publicly incite hatred or discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.
The Netherlands' law against discrimination, which prohibits speech or acts that are deemed to discriminate against individuals or groups on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.
Norway's law against hate speech, which prohibits speech that is deemed to incite hatred or discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. (source: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/equality-and-diversity/...)
In Poland you cannot insult the president: https://www.politico.eu/article/poles-legal-jeopardy-insulti.... You can also go in jail for "insult to religious feelings". (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offending_religious_feelings_(...)
With those two common law systems in Europe are there public free speech assembly spaces that might be then copied onto the electronic world?
Yes it is weird that europe has public television, public education etc, but we don't have a public Mastodon. Even if it s not very popular, it is a necessity. An additional benefit of publicly-ran communications is that they can't be censored unless it s something unlawful.
Yes, I’d very much like to pay a new tax in addition to the television tax (even though I never used it). And yes, let some guys decide what’s “misinformation” and what isn’t. My guess is that anything that’s not aligned with a state’s foreign policy is “misinformation”.
- It's much better when the limits of speech are determined by the courts than by private company owners
[flagged]
Europe doesn’t have free speech because -
If the gov't will be in charge of it then it will be shit as all government services are in general. If there is no profit in it for someone the platform won't improve. It's the classic "the capitalist owns a restaurant vs the people own a restaurant, but which has better food".
Spare me. Private medicine is a disaster, private utilities are disasters where they are tried, private roads are a disaster. Governments screw a lot of things up. So do private companies. Arguing about which is better in the abstract is like arguing whether even or odd numbers are “better”: only possible for tribalists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not true. You can say f* Trump or f* Biden all you want online or outside. That’s not the case in France for example. [Edit] Ref: https://news.yahoo.com/french-woman-faces-trial-insulting-16...
How is that not true? Yes you can say fuck trump or fuck biden(why are you self censoring yourself on the internet btw), but you can't say "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you" to a police officer - you will be arrested and put in prison even if you were "just saying things". Your freedom of speech isn't absolute. For other examples - several states made it illegal for journalists to report on violations on farms…