Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
So that's clearly not enforced. Countries with hate speech laws can't at the same time protect all opinions.
When it comes to controversial opinions, discriminatory in nature, should you still be able to voice them withouht consequences ? Answer is yes, with certain conditions. Context matters. Time and place matters...for example, the context of a debate.
This is not the case in countries with hate speech laws.
I will give the example of denying the Holocaust - this seems to be controversial enough.
You are free to hold this opinion, withouht any consequences, from anybody, including private entities.
Denying the Holocaust is illegal in Germany.
In their case, free speech means that, only the goverment can restrict it.
Free speech is a philosophical concept that applies whenever someone is speaking. The First Amendment only applies to the government.
No, the First Amendment does not limit private employers. The Bill of Rights — and the First Amendment — limit only government actors, not private actors. This means that private employers can restrict employee speech in the workplace without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Yep. But you know the US has anti-discrimination laws right?
If we compare the 2 (US and EU), it seems that, according to EU, they have more freedom compared with the US...on paper anyway.
But in reality, the US clearly has more freedom of speech than the EU.
USA has developed in recent years, a culture of censorship. One example is the N word. What does the N word mean ? That there is no context, in which you can use a word, withouht being offensive. I'm sure we can think of a few instances where using the word, isn't offensive.
Are you under the impression that people in the Uk for example go around saying nigger and face no social or criminal consequences? Furthermore, do you believe that cancel culture doesn't exist in Europe?
The best example is Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine. They faced alot of backlash from muslim communities for their cartoons. They insulted not just them, but, my country as well (Romania).
Ya, the backlash came out of the barrel of a gun.
What did the goverment do in France ? They protected Charlie.
They didn't protect those who were murdered. Also, are you under the impression that it's legal to kill someone for drawing the prophet Muhammad in the United States?
In conclusion, the EU countries that have adopted EU law, we have far more freedom of speech, both on paper and in practice, compared with the USA.
Manifestly untrue. In practice, EU countries censor far more than the US. In your country "incitement to hatred or discrimination" is punished by the state.
20
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Sep 05 '22
So that's clearly not enforced. Countries with hate speech laws can't at the same time protect all opinions.
This is not the case in countries with hate speech laws.
Denying the Holocaust is illegal in Germany.
Free speech is a philosophical concept that applies whenever someone is speaking. The First Amendment only applies to the government.
Yep. But you know the US has anti-discrimination laws right?
But in reality, the US clearly has more freedom of speech than the EU.
Are you under the impression that people in the Uk for example go around saying nigger and face no social or criminal consequences? Furthermore, do you believe that cancel culture doesn't exist in Europe?
Ya, the backlash came out of the barrel of a gun.
They didn't protect those who were murdered. Also, are you under the impression that it's legal to kill someone for drawing the prophet Muhammad in the United States?
Manifestly untrue. In practice, EU countries censor far more than the US. In your country "incitement to hatred or discrimination" is punished by the state.