But “Free Speech” is often referred to as though it is some magical incantation in the USA. It may be my ignorance, but I haven’t come across anything to imply it’s seen that way in other countries.
Freedom of speech is often conflated with non-discrimination.
i.e. A grocery store clerk mentioning politics om the job. In a non-“at-will” state and with a non-disgusting contract between employee and employer, the employer never comes under “Free speech” violations, but discrimination ones.
Even in such a mix of specific circumstances (the state, the employee and the employer being sane rule-wise), there’d still need to be a counterexample - i.e. would the same happen if the person held a slightly different belief or posessed a slightly different shade of skin, set of chromosomes or some other discriminator.
It’s a higher ask than a “Free Speech” card, but it is a protection. (Some restrictions may apply).
Free speech is protection from the government. People, especially here on Lenny it seems, (not saying you personally, just in general) have a highly gross misunderstanding of the basic law when they claim free speech is anything else.
The US being a younger nation is probably why you hear it more from Americans. Our rights are new, relative to the most of the world. Plus US culture is everywhere.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), signed on 4 November 1950, guarantees a broad range of human rights to inhabitants of member countries of the Council of Europe, which includes almost all European nations. These rights include Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression. Echoing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this provides that:
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. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises
There’s a difference between the legal concept as it relates to the constitution and the broader ethical principle on which the first amendment was based.
We can still talk about the ideal of free speech outside of the government. In fact, this ties into the myth of “free enterprise” which suggests that everything companies do is about freedom but everything the government does is about tyranny. This is obviously nonsense but we’re so indoctrinated to it that we rarely question it fully.
Yeah Facebook posts have been getting people fired for years. Just a few weeks ago someone at my job got fired for talking shit about the company on Facebook along with posting pictures. They framed it as he was fired for having his phone on him when it’s supposed to be in your locker, but obviously it wasn’t that.
On the one hand this is how it’s supposed to work. Free speech as a legal concept in the U.S. only protects you from the government…
…on the other hand it would be really helpful if there were a list of companies that were firing folks for being critical of Charlie Kirk…
…you know…for reasons…
Probably easier to compile a list of those supporting free speech. Spoiler alert: there’s not many.
That’s what free speech is around the world, not just in America.
But “Free Speech” is often referred to as though it is some magical incantation in the USA. It may be my ignorance, but I haven’t come across anything to imply it’s seen that way in other countries.
Freedom of speech is often conflated with non-discrimination.
i.e. A grocery store clerk mentioning politics om the job. In a non-“at-will” state and with a non-disgusting contract between employee and employer, the employer never comes under “Free speech” violations, but discrimination ones.
Even in such a mix of specific circumstances (the state, the employee and the employer being sane rule-wise), there’d still need to be a counterexample - i.e. would the same happen if the person held a slightly different belief or posessed a slightly different shade of skin, set of chromosomes or some other discriminator.
It’s a higher ask than a “Free Speech” card, but it is a protection. (Some restrictions may apply).
Thr UK has the same thing as America. Australia on the other hand, for example, doesn’t have as many of those rights. https://legalclarity.org/does-australia-have-freedom-of-speech/
Free speech is protection from the government. People, especially here on Lenny it seems, (not saying you personally, just in general) have a highly gross misunderstanding of the basic law when they claim free speech is anything else.
The US being a younger nation is probably why you hear it more from Americans. Our rights are new, relative to the most of the world. Plus US culture is everywhere.
Do they? I wasn’t actually sure. I thought the government was cracking down on anti-genocide speech.
Basically the same.
UK is not In the eu.
No kidding.
So where does the clampdown on anti-genocide speech land wrt this?
There’s a difference between the legal concept as it relates to the constitution and the broader ethical principle on which the first amendment was based.
We can still talk about the ideal of free speech outside of the government. In fact, this ties into the myth of “free enterprise” which suggests that everything companies do is about freedom but everything the government does is about tyranny. This is obviously nonsense but we’re so indoctrinated to it that we rarely question it fully.
Why? You think it’s ideal that your livelihood is dependent on holding whatever the majority opinion of the day is?
Yeah Facebook posts have been getting people fired for years. Just a few weeks ago someone at my job got fired for talking shit about the company on Facebook along with posting pictures. They framed it as he was fired for having his phone on him when it’s supposed to be in your locker, but obviously it wasn’t that.