# American vs. non-American conceptions of free speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2014, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017 "2014-12-01T07:27:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rodgers01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Rodgers01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodgers01)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/41 "2014-12-01T22:02:56Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Others involve situations which in our view may easily lead to abuses: for example, the four Europeans in my last American job (4 in a team of about 200 people) were stunned when a company VP sent an email to everybody who worked in the Philadephia locations telling us who to vote for. In France, the UK, Germany or Spain that would have gotten the dude put on medical leave while doctors evaluated whether the problem was a breakdown or cerebral death, and the political scandal would have been enormous; our American colleagues found it normal. This would have been very abnormal at any place I’ve ever worked in the US. I’ve never even heard anything like this before. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/42 "2014-12-01T22:08:47Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > This would have been very abnormal at any place I’ve ever worked in the US. I’ve never even heard anything like this before. Yeah, this certainly is NOT typical of American workplaces. There have, however, been a few cases in the news over the years where companies send memos out to their employees saying things along the lines of “If John Smith is elected president, his election promise to tax gold-plated dildos will adversely affect the bottom line of this company. We would be forced to cut expenses somewhere to make up for the loss in revenue, and might have to consider laying off some employees or cutting back on hours.” It is then left to the employees to vote in their own best interests. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/43 "2014-12-01T22:52:00Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > So, how would European-style hate speech laws have helped blacks in the American South between the end of Reconstruction and the present? … I’m afraid i just don’t see how your proposed solution solves the problem. That wasn’t my point at all. I was responding to the post by **iiandyiiii** that hate speech can’t hurt anyone if they have civil rights protections. I completely disagree. As I said, and as **clairobscur** also re-iterated in the quote below, civil rights don’t matter if there is a strong undercurrent of public opinion running against a particular group, something that is always a risk from an aggressive broadly orchestrated hate campaign against some group. > [@mhendo](#): > > But shouldn’t the moral and legal responsibility rest, then, on the person who acts? You can complain all you like about the alleged inevitability of acts resulting from hate speech, but the fact is that each of us has free will, and each of us should be able to make our own decision about what acts we will and will not carry out. This is similar to the argument that unrestricted campaign spending or contributions or unrestricted electioneering or advocacy ads or any other form of using money to manipulate public opinion doesn’t really matter because everybody makes their own decisions and people aren’t stupid, or something like that. It just isn’t true. Just ask any advertising executive or any political fundraiser. The current right-wing position is that money is equivalent to speech; in point of fact, money is pretty much equivalent to shaping public opinion and hence the political landscape – and the world – to be just the way you want it. Hate speech can do the same thing in very nasty and evil ways. And by the time someone has actually acted on the incitement, it’s too late for prevention – the damage is done. Regulating directly inciteful hate speech follows the well established legal principle of upholding social order by preventing violence rather than by simply punishing it when it occurs. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And when the group get a broad enough support, they’ll abolish the laws that protect civil rights, like anti-discrimination laws, then constitutional protections, and eventually probably free speech too. > > How comes you fear that restricting free speech might result in tyranny, but don’t fear that not restricting hate speech might result in tyranny? Possibly because the USA hasn’t been ruled by the nazi party yet. Agreed. > [@Velocity](#): > > I don’t have a problem super-lax or super-strict rules on free speech, as long as it’s _consistent and evenly applied._ I do. I have a problem with both extremes. In reality, however, hate speech laws are so specific and well-bounded that they don’t affect any meaningful speech, but only the ranting of deranged lunatics. > [@Velocity](#): > > When one side gets much freedom of speech but the other side is stifled, that’s a problem. Then you have a problem, because the wealthy have most of the power of the mass media, and the other side – meaning the other 99% of the population – is stifled. > [@Stringbean](#): > > The less restrictions, the better. This prevents the covetous power of banning others we don’t like from saying things we don’t want to hear. He who determines the freedom of other men is the greatest threat to all men. The greatest threat to all men is more likely those who see the world in black and white and bumper-sticker slogans instead of the nuanced complexity that it actually is. > [@Pleonast](#): > > The problem I have with the criminalization of certain types of speech and associations is that it is often serves the state’s interest rather than the peoples’. The examples you gave are irrelevant. It’s not as if a nation has to make some sort of strategic decision across the board to limit speech or else to completely refrain from limiting it. In real-world democracies one can have carefully drafted hate speech laws without having bans on political speech or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/44 "2014-12-01T22:55:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I was responding to the post by **iiandyiiii** that hate speech can’t hurt anyone if they have civil rights protections. This isn’t exactly what I said – my point was that when hate speech is allowed, it must be paired with robust civil rights protections. > [@](#): > > I completely disagree. As I said, and as **clairobscur** also re-iterated in the quote below, civil rights don’t matter if there a strong undercurrent of public opinion running against a particular group, something that is always a risk from an aggressive broadly orchestrated hate campaign against some group. I believe that such hate campaigns are more likely to be successful if their speech is banned – it lends victimhood and an air of legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/45 "2014-12-01T23:23:58Z")
I am an American, and I identify more with the American conception. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think the German (and some other European countries’) restrictions on speech are unnecessary. I understand why the exist – especially in Germany – but I don’t think they actually do much good. Societal condemnation, without legal consequences, is the best response to hate speech, in my view. Legal punishment can lead to feelings of victimhood and martyrdom, which can (in some ways) help the haters. Neo-Nazis in Germany can _legitimately_ claim that the government is out to get them! I agree. The cultural argument against hateful groups is weakened when those groups actually are officially persecuted for their beliefs. > [@Mijin](#): > > …I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between inciting violence and inciting hatred, I agree, essentially; not much of a distinction. > [@Mijin](#): > > and I’m fine with neither being protected speech. I think there is a line to be drawn between discriminatory ideas (not inherently wrong) and hate-speech, but if there is any difficulty drawing that line, I’m fine with just drawing the line around all discrimination speech. I disagree with every part of this. > [@Mijin](#): > > I also don’t think news agencies and politicians should have any right to lie; if you deliberately mislead, then there’s nothing wrong with repercussions beyond just public outrage. I might support carefully circumscribed rules on public officials, meaning actual officeholders, with explicit, formal obligations to the people. I think an attempt to impose such standards on all public or political speech by any private entity would be so impractical and capricious as to become unjust in essence. > [@wolfpup](#): > > It turns out that the fabled “slippery slope” doesn’t exist, and you can have hate speech laws without otherwise impairing any other kind of speech. But I don’t _want_ hate speech laws, even if such a non-impairment could be guaranteed. I want to live in a society where, as a matter of policy, any idea can be voiced, including those I and most people agree are wrong and hateful. I want wrong and hateful ideas to be quashed, in time, only because people have _actually_ rejected them. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Conversely, by taking an absolutist view, you not only have hateful idiots like the late Fred Phelps causing real societal harm, but you have ridiculous concepts like the Citizens United decision essentially handing over the political process to the moneyed plutocracy. Silencing Fred Phelps with the force of the state would do more harm than Fred Phelps himself ever did. A lot of good dynamics came out of the responses _to_ Fred Phelps. Citizens United was wrong for other philosophical and structural reasons, too involved to get into here. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And what if a well-financed, well-run campaign of hate against some group starts to get believed and gathers momentum, so that instead of being condemned it starts getting broad support? I would oppose it, of course. I would hope that the target group had availed themselves of their Second Amendment rights when they had the chance. What’s your point? Do you have some reason to believe that hate groups are less likely to reach such levels of support if their ideas have been officially prohibited? There are members in European parliaments, and the European Parliament, whose parties would be reckoned hate groups by some American standards. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/46 "2014-12-01T23:45:03Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I believe every country limits speech based on their own history. If we use the modern interpretation that protected “speech” includes actions (like donating money or dancing topless) then the US proactively limits speech. The various civil rights acts, for example, bar someone from firing an employee based on race, a law that is appropriate given the history of US race relations. Do European nations generally have this rule? Most countries have signed up to the various non discrimination treaties and as such most countries have some form on non discrimination legislation that makes it illegal to sack someone because they are a certain race/religion etc. Australia does not have free speech enshrined in our constitution, what we have is balanced in my view. I can say I think the prime minister is a dickhead but I can’t turn around and say to people lets get him. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/47 "2014-12-02T00:08:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This is similar to the argument that unrestricted campaign spending or contributions or unrestricted electioneering or advocacy ads or any other form of using money to manipulate public opinion doesn’t really matter because everybody makes their own decisions and people aren’t stupid, or something like that. No, it’s really very different from that. Money is not the same as speech, but speech is the same as speech. And i never said that the hate speech doesn’t matter; i simply argued that if someone responds to hate speech by committing violent acts, it’s those acts that we should punish. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And by the time someone has actually acted on the incitement, it’s too late for prevention – the damage is done. Regulating directly inciteful hate speech follows the well established legal principle of upholding social order by preventing violence rather than by simply punishing it when it occurs. But punishing violence when it occurs, if properly done, should have the salutary effect of preventing it in the first place. My position is basically that one individual should not, except in very limited circumstances (parents and children, for example) be held responsible for the actions of another person. If i tell you to jump off a cliff, i might not be a very nice person, but if you decide to go and do it, that’s not my fault. If i suggest that the guy over there is stealing your job and deserves to be beaten up for it, i might be an asshole, but i’m not to blame if you decide to commit assault on him. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/48 "2014-12-02T00:41:05Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > If I had claimed this was a definition of hate speech, it would have been circular, but I did not. I’m simply saying “hate” in the sense of hate speech has a more specific meaning than when used generally. “I hate ice cream” is not hate speech. OK, well tell us what the definition is, in the European sense. I’m not familiar with how that is legislated. > [@](#): > > Inciting to commit a crime is not directly committing a crime either. No, but it can be prosecuted as conspiracy. > [@](#): > > When? Where did I say there was a distinction between the two kinds of inciting? You said: “All the restrictions on speech need to have some element of judgement and common sense. For example, it might be difficult to draw a hard line on whether speech incites others to commit crimes. Or was intended to cause a panic. Or is obscene (in an inappropriate place). But no problem; we can lay down general rules and make a judgement on specific cases.” In which you say there is a distinction to be drawn on whether speech is inciting others to commit a crime or not, but you originally said: “I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between inciting violence and inciting hatred” So why is there a need to draw a line if there is no distinction to be made? So, on the one hand you say you would only restrict speech if it was inciting others to commit a crime, but then you also say that inciting to hate is the same as inciting violence. Both of those cannot be true. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/49 "2014-12-02T01:39:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I largely agree with your analysis, but not with the philosophical conclusions to which it has led. Like the previous poster, I tend to be more on the European side of those issues. It is indeed this mythical and pervasive idea that government can’t be trusted that leads to absolutist ideas about unrestrained free speech, the idea being apparently that if you start putting any kind of restrictions on speech then where will it end? Well, that strawman has been pretty much settled in jurisdictions that have laws governing hate speech: it ends at carefully circumscribed laws that prohibit specific kinds of hateful speech against races or religions or other recognized groups that are already protected by anti-discrimination laws if such speech is likely to incite violence or otherwise jeopardize public safety. It turns out that the fabled “slippery slope” doesn’t exist, and you can have hate speech laws without otherwise impairing any other kind of speech. I am not persuaded that the slippery slope has been disprovren to exist. Hate Speech laws have only been used in Europe for one to two generations. Protected classes have already been redrawn to exclude Scientologists and Jehovah’s Witnesses in some countries. What happens in a few more years when opponents of the Mormons decide that they are no more deserving of protection than the Scientologists? Iran and China with laws that resemble those of Europe, have carved out distinctions that make the ruling class a protected class. Once the laws are shaped to grant specific protections, any future government can modify the boundaries to protect the government or to allow selected attacks on unprotected undesirables while making those who would launch such attacks a protected class. I hope the European model continues to work, but I think that any declaration of its success is premature. The U.S., with its more nearly absolutist position has managed to demonize some groups while protecting their attackers on a few occasions. I would need to see some solid evidence that Europe has some way to avoid that path before I acceptees a claim that no “slippery slope” exists. ---
**Author:** ![manila](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@manila](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manila)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/50 "2014-12-02T01:51:51Z")
But how should we view the several reported suicides of youngsters caused by persistent hate speech delivered through social media sites? What measures can draw up against the abusers? ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/51 "2014-12-02T01:59:33Z")
I think to use an analogy rather than quote legislation in Australia: I can say I want sharia law but I cannot encourage some one to break the countries laws to bring this about whether through armed conflict or joining a terrorist organisation. I can say that I think religion is dumb but I cannot incite hatred or violence towards any group of religious nut jobs. So saying that catholic church is active in covering up child abuse and we should stop supporting them is cool (and should be encouraged IMO) but I cannot incite violence towards them. The line between hatred and inciting violence is a nuanced one, but as with most things like this it is very difficult to draw a clear line before the event. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/52 "2014-12-02T02:00:34Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > But I don’t _want_ hate speech laws, even if such a non-impairment could be guaranteed. I want to live in a society where, as a matter of policy, any idea can be voiced, including those I and most people agree are wrong and hateful. > > I want wrong and hateful ideas to be quashed, in time, only because people have _actually_ rejected them. People in civilized societies _ **have** _ rejected them. The way they demonstrate their rejection of them is by prohibiting them. And that’s why prohibiting certain forms of hateful speech promoting violence is not considered a transgression against legitimate free speech. I’ll never buy into the fable that hateful speech should be allowed based on some allegedly sacred principle that turns out to be nothing more than the fact that some folks don’t trust their government and worry about some mythical slippery slope of censorship. If you’re going to worry about slippery slopes, maybe you should worry about the fine line between inciting someone to commit a hate crime and actually committing the hate crime. And it is a fine line. I mentioned before a case where a mob charged under a municipal hate crime ordinance for burning a cross in a black family’s front yard while chanting hate slogans had all charges dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds of free speech. Setting a fire on someone’s lawn, let alone setting a fire to an object long associated with the worst kind of racist violence, seems to me well beyond mere speech and firmly in the territory of dangerous behavior, harassment, trespassing, criminal intimidation and probably a dozen other things that, where I live, would have had these idiots thrown in jail within five minutes. > [@Peremensoe](#): > > I would hope that the target group had availed themselves of their Second Amendment rights when they had the chance. So you would hope that hateful speech and incitement to violence against a minority group would be met by a hail of gunfire from said minority group? Is that really what you meant? You want to live in a war zone? That sure as hell isn’t the kind of society I would ever condescend to live in, ever. > [@mhendo](#): > > No, it’s really very different from that. > > Money is not the same as speech, but speech is the same as speech. And i never said that the hate speech doesn’t matter; i simply argued that if someone responds to hate speech by committing violent acts, it’s those acts that we should punish.But punishing violence when it occurs, if properly done, should have the salutary effect of preventing it in the first place. My position is basically that one individual should not, except in very limited circumstances (parents and children, for example) be held responsible for the actions of another person. If i tell you to jump off a cliff, i might not be a very nice person, but if you decide to go and do it, that’s not my fault. If i suggest that the guy over there is stealing your job and deserves to be beaten up for it, i might be an asshole, but i’m not to blame if you decide to commit assault on him. No, it’s not different, it’s exactly the same: the purveyors of hate propaganda can influence public opinion in the exact same way that lobbyists, PR firms, advertisers, and politicians do. That’s exactly what the Nazis did to promote widespread anti-Semitism, not just through the propaganda machine of Joseph Goebbels, but earlier through influential private individuals like the notorious Julius Streicher. On the second point, punishing violence is only preventative if you consider the punishment a deterrent for future acts. It’s a lot more effective to try to proactively address the underlying causes, and we do this all the time – impaired driving is an offense even if you appear to be driving just fine and have not been in an accident. And that extends to responsibility for others’ actions – a bartender or server continuing to serve someone obviously intoxicated, for instance, or someone selling a firearm to someone not entitled to possess one, or selling liquor to someone under age – those things can all lead to liability for the original provider if something bad happens. Some may not agree, and it may not apply in all jurisdictions, but it’s a common legal principle and I entirely agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/53 "2014-12-02T02:07:14Z")
> [@manila](#): > > But how should we view the several reported suicides of youngsters caused by persistent hate speech delivered through social media sites? What measures can draw up against the abusers? This could be covered by anti bullying legislation and/or libel contributing to suicide. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/54 "2014-12-02T03:09:38Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Do you really believe that the adoption of hate speech laws in Weimar Germany would have prevented the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party? Do you really believe that the current absence of Nazism among European countries can be attributed to the bans on hate speech? No. But I really believe that those countries really don’t want a rerun, and as a result have a hard stance on some political views (which could help, in fact preventing a rerun in certain circustances), while Americans, having no such experience in their recent history, might feel less worried about it. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/55 "2014-12-02T03:10:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, it’s not different, it’s exactly the same: the purveyors of hate propaganda can influence public opinion in the exact same way that lobbyists, PR firms, advertisers, and politicians do. That’s exactly what the Nazis did to promote widespread anti-Semitism, not just through the propaganda machine of Joseph Goebbels, but earlier through influential private individuals like the notorious Julius Streicher. I’ve never suggested that propaganda and public relations can’t influence public opinion. Go back and look for yourself. I’ll wait here while you check. It still doesn’t mean that arguing against hate crime bans is the same as arguing against restrictions on political contributions. They’re not the same thiing, no matter how much you might wish they were. > [@wolfpup](#): > > On the second point, punishing violence is only preventative if you consider the punishment a deterrent for future acts. It’s a lot more effective to try to proactively address the underlying causes, and we do this all the time – impaired driving is an offense even if you appear to be driving just fine and have not been in an accident. And that extends to responsibility for others’ actions – a bartender or server continuing to serve someone obviously intoxicated, for instance, or someone selling a firearm to someone not entitled to possess one, or selling liquor to someone under age – those things can all lead to liability for the original provider if something bad happens. Some may not agree, and it may not apply in all jurisdictions, but it’s a common legal principle and I entirely agree with it. I have never once suggested that this legal principle is new or inapplicable. You’re a master at refuting my non-arguments. I fully understand that some people who don’t comprehend the concept of personal responsibility think it’s appropriate to hold a bartender responsible for serving an apparently intoxicated person. Your examples also move beyond the purview of speech to actions, and so you precisely miss the point that i’m making here. Speech is not the same as selling something like a gun. The right to speak, to express ideas, is more fundamental than other rights, because speech and ideas are the core of who we are as human beings. My speech is not responsible for someone else’s actions, and people who believe that it is fail to understand where responsibility lies. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/56 "2014-12-02T03:15:52Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > No. But I really believe that those countries really don’t want a rerun, and as a result have a hard stance on some political views (which could help, in fact preventing a rerun in certain circustances), while Americans, having no such experience in their recent history, might feel less worried about it. So your position, to summarize, is: “It wouldn’t have changed anything, but i have this feeling, based on no evidence at all, that it might prevent something similar in the future, so it’s fine.” ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/57 "2014-12-02T03:24:00Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > The less restrictions, the better. This prevents the covetous power of banning others we don’t like from saying things we don’t want to hear. He who determines the freedom of other men is the greatest threat to all men. Complete hyperbole. Limiting some speech that supports tyranny, and verifiably led to tyranny in a recent past isn’t particularly likely to lead to tyranny. We have been surviving for some decades as democracies despite banning nazi parties, and I suspect we’ll keep surviving despite the grave danger of preventing nazis from spewing their propaganda. This ban isn’t random and susceptible to be applied to anybody else depending on the whims of the moment. It’s based on dozens of millions of deaths. And for the second sentence, your president, congresscritters, judges, etc… spend their time determining what should be the freedom of other men. It’s an empty statement, unless you support anarchism. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/58 "2014-12-02T03:24:22Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > The various civil rights acts, for example, bar someone from firing an employee based on race, a law that is appropriate given the history of US race relations. Do European nations generally have this rule? Yes, although we usually don’t have the concept of “protected class”. In Spain for example, Article 14 of the Constitution establishes: > [@Doña Consti](#): > > Los españoles son iguales ante la ley, sin que pueda prevalecer discriminación alguna por > razón de nacimiento, raza, sexo, religión, opinión o cualquier otra condición o circunstancia > personal o social. Translation: _Spaniards are legal equals; discrimination on the basis of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or other personal or social circumstances is not acceptable._ While it says “Spaniards”, this is understood to apply also to foreigners in most cases (labor law, access to healthcare, access to education, etc.); there is “discrimination on the basis of being a foreigner” in that for example you have to be a Spanish citizen to be elected for Parliament, but that’s standard. At one point there was a case where someone got fired for being gay; he went to the Labor Court claiming discrimination, his former employer claimed that since this wasn’t specifically listed it wasn’t covered. Since several of the Fathers of our current Constitution were still alive, the Court figured the best way to make sure their intent was correctly taken into account was to consult them. Answer: “we didn’t list that because we didn’t think about it, but that’s also why there’s that general bit at the end! It’s illegal to fire anybody for non-job-related reasons, period; you can’t fire someone for being gay, you can’t fire someone for being a fan of a soccer club you don’t like or for being too fond of garlic bread. Well, you can, but it’s going to cost you.” **sisu** , I agree that anti-libel and privacy-protection laws are part of the whole “what is it ok to say” package, but ours tend to be stronger. In the US, if you walk out on the street it’s ok to publish pics of you anywhere without getting your consent. In Spain, it’s not; there have to be specific conditions for it to be ok (news bits are ok so long as it’s real news, or you have to be a “public personality”, which in turn amounts to either “doing something specifically intended to be published” or “having previously sold what would normally be considered private information”). This is also linked to copyright laws, curiously enough: in the US, pics are assumed to be the property of the photographer; in Spain (and I understand, most of Europe), of the person depicted. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/59 "2014-12-02T03:29:56Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > So your position, to summarize, is: “It wouldn’t have changed anything, but i have this feeling, based on no evidence at all, that it might prevent something similar in the future, so it’s fine.” What I meant to say, in fact, is that the difference can be explained by the different historical experiences. But otherwise, yes, I think that banning nazi parties will make less likely than nazi parties will come to power. It seems a reasonnable deduction to me. And finally, as I wrote in my previous post, I believe that 50 millions deaths is a reasonnable justification to ban a political party. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017/60 "2014-12-02T03:32:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Yeah, this certainly is NOT typical of American workplaces. > > There have, however, been a few cases in the news over the years where companies send memos out to their employees saying things along the lines of “If John Smith is elected president, his election promise to tax gold-plated dildos will adversely affect the bottom line of this company. We would be forced to cut expenses somewhere to make up for the loss in revenue, and might have to consider laying off some employees or cutting back on hours.” > > It is then left to the employees to vote in their own best interests. It was like that. For us it was “don’t bother set his ass on fire, it already is: just don’t piss on him” level, but for the Americans it was OK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-vs-non-american-conceptions-of-free-speech/706017.md?page=4)