Just like in Canada, you’re free to say as you please as long as it doesn’t harm or hinder someone else freedom of expression. Hate speech is (often) not an acceptable use.
If you’re not able to critizice Israël without deniying Holocaust happened I don’t really care you are silenced. There’s plenty of ppl capable of doing the first without the latter and these are the people I want to hear not some confusionist bullshit
I’msorry, but legally speaking that is not the case. In the US, which specifies freedom speech ‘as is’ (cited)
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.
the Supreme court decided that hate speech is, in most cases protected (see Imminent Lawless Action test, Brandenburg V Ohio)
Of course, all nations aren’t the US and for instance my country, Czech rep, allows limiting free speech, but it outlines this specific reasoning in its Bill of Rights, specifically §17(4) of 2/1993 Coll. Said Article says that ‘For the reason of protecting democracy, the law can limit free speech…’ and I assume the Finnish Constitution has a similar clause.
But the plain expression ‘freedom of speech’ does protect hate speech. That being said, even the afformentioned US limits free speech as it allows individuals to sue for libel and defamation and allows the state to prosecute someone for meaningful threats.
Yeah, that’s true. Generally, I think the Constitution needs a lot of revision as it fails to properly protect the civil rights of its citizens so a bunch of corrupt assholes (looking at you Clarence Thomas) cannot just disappear them in a whim.
Also the decision was made in the 60s by the liberal Warren court (the one that, among others, ended institutionalized segregation in the public sphere (Brown V BoE))
That decision was made in the 60’s, not today. I was trying to write analysis as neutral as possible, not to say which side is morally correct. And while the political situation in the US is dire and the incumbent admin absolutely blatantly violated, among others, freedom of speech (Perkins Coie LLC V DOJ, a case under which hundred of amici signed in support of the Plaintiff) and it is true that Brandenburg, actual KKK leader, was a piece of shit on another level, the decision still stands.
Hate speech is how my country’s democracy fell in part. Hate was let go rampant, and people had to accept far-right propaganda, otherwise they were accused of discrediting the trauma of victims of crimes commited by minorities.
Stating you hate nazi is a thing. Creating a political party and actively stating you want to kill whoever you include in your nazi definition are two differents things.
This is why it is ultimately at the judge to determine if it fall under hate speech and promoting violence or is just a random anarchkiddo on the web saying ‘I wAnT tO kIlL nAZi’ from his mama home
Free speech != Hate speech. Holocaust denial is hate speech. End of the story.
Just like in Canada, you’re free to say as you please as long as it doesn’t harm or hinder someone else freedom of expression. Hate speech is (often) not an acceptable use.
Surely this won’t ever be abused to silence/punish Palestinian supporters or anyone critical of Isreal. That never happens.
If you’re not able to critizice Israël without deniying Holocaust happened I don’t really care you are silenced. There’s plenty of ppl capable of doing the first without the latter and these are the people I want to hear not some confusionist bullshit
That’s not at all what I’m saying. No holocaust denial is necessary if those in power abuse the law.
No holocaust denial is necessary. Period.
For sure!
I’msorry, but legally speaking that is not the case. In the US, which specifies freedom speech ‘as is’ (cited)
the Supreme court decided that hate speech is, in most cases protected (see Imminent Lawless Action test, Brandenburg V Ohio)
Of course, all nations aren’t the US and for instance my country, Czech rep, allows limiting free speech, but it outlines this specific reasoning in its Bill of Rights, specifically §17(4) of 2/1993 Coll. Said Article says that ‘For the reason of protecting democracy, the law can limit free speech…’ and I assume the Finnish Constitution has a similar clause.
But the plain expression ‘freedom of speech’ does protect hate speech. That being said, even the afformentioned US limits free speech as it allows individuals to sue for libel and defamation and allows the state to prosecute someone for meaningful threats.
that court (in its present composition) is a bunch of fucked up privileged racist monsters.
Yeah, that’s true. Generally, I think the Constitution needs a lot of revision as it fails to properly protect the civil rights of its citizens so a bunch of corrupt assholes (looking at you Clarence Thomas) cannot just disappear them in a whim.
Also the decision was made in the 60s by the liberal Warren court (the one that, among others, ended institutionalized segregation in the public sphere (Brown V BoE))
Oh cool, too bad the US government has decided your laws don’t hold concrete merit and the constitution is worth as much as toilet paper.
That decision was made in the 60’s, not today. I was trying to write analysis as neutral as possible, not to say which side is morally correct. And while the political situation in the US is dire and the incumbent admin absolutely blatantly violated, among others, freedom of speech (Perkins Coie LLC V DOJ, a case under which hundred of amici signed in support of the Plaintiff) and it is true that Brandenburg, actual KKK leader, was a piece of shit on another level, the decision still stands.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Hate speech is how my country’s democracy fell in part. Hate was let go rampant, and people had to accept far-right propaganda, otherwise they were accused of discrediting the trauma of victims of crimes commited by minorities.
You American? Sounds like what’s happening there.
deleted by creator
Russia really loves hate speech from what I’ve heard.
deleted by creator
You make a persuasive case that free speech, by your definition, isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Why would you want to be hateful?!
Because I hate Nazis
I think hate can be self-destructive. If you’re going to punch a Nazi, do it from a place of love. But also, more power to your elbow.
Stating you hate nazi is a thing. Creating a political party and actively stating you want to kill whoever you include in your nazi definition are two differents things.
This is why it is ultimately at the judge to determine if it fall under hate speech and promoting violence or is just a random anarchkiddo on the web saying ‘I wAnT tO kIlL nAZi’ from his mama home
deleted by creator
So you’re all for freedom of speech, but the moment someone exercises it you’d like them to up sticks to another country? Riiight. You sound unhinged.
deleted by creator
Oh look, the dumbass can’t even answer a single question.
You aren’t allowed to shout “Fire!” in a packed theatre. Is it censorship?
Honestly, yes. It’s justified censorship, but still censorship
deleted by creator
The amount of times you call other people stupid tells a lot about you. You know for the stupid, everybody else is stupid.
“You are really dumbfuck”
Oh, the irony.