Confirmed.
I find article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights particularly enlightening:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. [...]
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
To me it reads as "you have the right to free speech without interference by public authorities, except in all cases where public authorities want to interfere in whatever form and for whatever reason".
Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has.
As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist.
Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.
Respectfully, you brought it up. Now when pressed on the issue YOU brought up you pivot to saying "I'm not here for that" and "I'm just stating facts."
You were clearly trying to make an argument to say that the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech. So back up your argument!
In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with.
Not at all, I guess the way I've phrased it made you misunderstand it but when I wrote "It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited.", I don't see how you can interpret this as "the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech".
You're making a shortcut, maybe based on the fact that usually some people use this arguments to complain about EU.
> In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with.
No, you're wrong from the beginning.
I think it's an excellent thing that there are restrictions on public freedom of speech and what I wrote is merely a stating of facts.
You find my arguments weak because they only exist in your imagination.
You’re right, I read it more as an argument against that system. In retrospect as I re-read you indeed never made that argument, even if the same facts support those who do.
If Congress had a spine they would make it illegal for American corporations to collaborate with foreign countries in restricting any speech which would be legal in America. And if the EU had a spine, the would blanket ban all American social media. We're in this situation now because both sides are pussyfooting around the source of conflict, fundamentally incompatible values, never seeking resolution because it's easier to just continue with the status quo and ignore the resulting tensions. No respect for either side.
They are not pussyfooting, if governments did what you say everything would be illegal and all borders closed, war soon to follow. Collaborating with foreign countries is what it means to find resolution to issues.
Oh please, give me a break. WW3 because Europe has European social media instead of being stuck on American properties? I can always count on HN for the most insane takes.
This social media shit obviously needs to be based in the country it operates, that's the only way these international moderation policy issues can ever be resolved.
For example, in many countries it's illegal to say that WWII concentration camps didn't exist.
In Belgium, a media can't make a publication that mocks the King.