8 ms·

My heart sinks when I see this sort of parochial US-centric definition of free speech. The vast majority of the world is not protected by and has no interest in

My heart sinks when I see this sort of parochial US-centric definition of free speech. The vast majority of the world is not protected by and has no interest in US constitutional rights. The principles of free speech are universal, much more important and much broader than the US constitution. There are many ways to foster and promote free speech that has nothing to do with US law. Yes, we're often discussing US companies when this topic comes up, but you should realise that people outside the United States are not covered by US constitutional guarantees, and US companies don't treat us like we are. We must foster a discussion where the principles of free speech are seen to be important outside of this narrow, legalistic, US-centered sense.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> has no interest in US constitutional rights Not sure about that. I know friends outside the US who know more about US laws than their own countries' laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
- thagsimmons 4y ago
  Sorry, but this is just the kind of narrow parochialism I'm complaining about. I said "the vast majority of the world", and I stand by that - the idea that ordinary people in China, India, Africa, the Pacific and so on give one iota of a damn about US law is completely absurd. Furthermore, this attitude is a fantasy even within the Anglosphere - I live in New Zealand, and I bet not one person in 100 could give me a clear statement of what rights the 1st amendment guarantees and what its limits are, beyond the barest outline.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It's a fantasy even in US. Witness all the people demanding that e.g. Facebook "respects their First Amendment rights".
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    I am Indian, and I give a damn about US law. > Furthermore, this attitude is a fantasy even within the Anglosphere - I live in New Zealand, and I bet not one person in 100 could give me a clear statement of what rights the 1st amendment guarantees and what its limits are, beyond the barest outline. They don't have to. Popular culture is saturated with a low res version of 1st amendment. What is more annoying about parochialism is every thing turning into mud slinging on the US.
hodgesrm 4y ago
This is a fair point but any discussion of free speech should be grounded with examples of systems that help maintain it, of which the US constitutional regime is one. Not all such regimes have worked, as the French Revolution demonstrated starting 2 months after the adoption of the US constitution. [0, 1] So my question would be, what other practical examples would you introduce to the discussion? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...
- thagsimmons 4y ago
  Oh? How successful do you think the US constitutional mechanism has really been in protecting free speech? And by "free speech" here, I mean exactly the broader sense, not constrained by a narrow constitutionalist view. To take one facet of the question, consider the World Press Freedom Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index The country I live in (New Zealand) has no constitutional free speech guarantees, and ranks 11th. The US ranks 42nd, behind East Timor, Jamaica, Slovakia, South Africa, and many other places I imagine your average American would not associate with free speech. Now, I have quibbles with the way the Press Freedom Index is assembled, and it only captures one narrow (but important) aspect of what we care about when we speak about free speech. That notwithstanding, my question to you is this: scanning down that list of countries, does it perhaps occur to you that the US may have something to learn from us, rather than the other way round?
  - kurthr 4y ago
    Wait until Rupert Murdoch sells "News" there. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/jacinda-ardern-rupert-murdoch-white-men-new-zealand-prime-minister/ https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/jacinda-ardern-ru...
  - int_19h 4y ago
    I lived in Russia, New Zealand, Canada, and US. Of the four, US undoubtedly is the best at protecting controversial political speech, which to me feels like exactly what you want to prioritize if you want to maintain a free society.
sabarn01 4y ago
This is a fish don't know they are wet phenomena. Government protected free speech is taken for granted here that people cannot contemplate what it means for the rest of the world.
JenrHywy 4y ago
I'm not sure if many people realize the the UNHCR has the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[0], ratified by ~180 countries. Unlike the First Amendment, the preamble the the ICCPR makes it clear that it is concerned with the responsibilities of States and citizens: Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant Article 19 of the ICCPR deals with freedom of expression, and states: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. This frames freedom of expression as a positive right, whereas the First Amendment is about negative rights. Also in contrast to the First Amendment, the power to curtail these rights is explicitly given to law-makers, in a limited fashion. Non-legal restrictions on free expression constitute a violation of rights. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
- colonCapitalDee 4y ago
  Freedom of speech as defined by the ICCPR is so limited as to be effectively meaningless (which is why ~180 countries have ratified it). It wouldn't protect your ability to report on military misconduct, not wear a hijab, or criticize politicians, for example.
WalterBright 4y ago
There are fundamental rights of man. Government can recognize or abrogate those rights, but cannot invent those rights. For example, if rights were invented by the government, there would be nothing about slavery that was wrong. If we say slavery violates the right to liberty, then we are saying that the right to liberty is inherent.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  > There are fundamental rights of man Yeah, but not really. God is dead and such.
  - tekla 4y ago
    The fundamental rights of man explicitly doesn't use God as the basis for human rights.
    - jimbokun 4y ago
      Historically, some conceptions of them absolutely do. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- tstrimple 4y ago
  This is ascribing some sort of mythical quality to rights. Rights are simply what a society decides should be conveyed to its people. A country could decide that their people have a right to receiving a free hoodie every November and as long as the country supports that right, those people have that right. There is nothing inherently moral about rights. Countries have many times supported the immoral rights of their people. And people's rights are only as good as the society's support for those rights. There is nothing inherent or inalienable about them.
  - eldritch_4ier 4y ago
    This is exactly the root of the “atheists can’t be moral” argument. Not that any individual atheist can’t be moral for the time being, but that a godless society inevitably falls into relativism where the only good is the consensus and the only morality is what you can argue. This is one of those cases. I think we’d all be better off with an absolute basis for rights than a relativistic one.
sneak 4y ago
The assertion of the US' founders is that such rights are inherent to all people, natural rights, and inalienable. The fact that it was codified into law in a specific country is an implementation detail. The concepts of liberty in the US documents are philosophical assertions and not related to any nation. They also happen to be law in the US, but even there they don't really hold force; such "rights" are violated constantly.
- nautilius 4y ago
  > The assertion of the US' founders is that such rights are inherent to all people, natural rights, and inalienable. It very obviously wasn't [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
  - sneak 4y ago
    Nothing of the ideology seemingly professed by the famous US founding set were ever actually implemented. Slavery is just the big obvious one but there are a million other examples of their failure to actually implement their espoused philosophy. It seems like more of an aspirational/marketing meme than anything. “As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.” -Lincoln
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
judge2020 4y ago
The reason is because the audience is likely majority US-based, US-adjacent, or their work focuses on compliance with US laws and customers more than other laws. Unless you mean the source piece by Ken White itself, which is a specifically about the first amendment and not human rights in general.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
The framework applies equally turn on US country so I'm not sure what you are objecting to. If you read the link they provided it provides definitions for different types of free speech ranging from those that are legally enshrined (or not depending on your country), to how individuals socially react and common custom.
jimbokun 4y ago
US companies power to enable free speech culture is strongly proscribed by the laws of the countries where the content is being accessed. I don't see how US tech companies could over come China's Great Firewall, for example, without the cooperation of the Chinese government.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

> has no interest in US constitutional rights Not sure about that. I know friends outside the US who know more about US laws than their own countries' laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

thagsimmons 4y ago
Sorry, but this is just the kind of narrow parochialism I'm complaining about. I said "the vast majority of the world", and I stand by that - the idea that ordinary people in China, India, Africa, the Pacific and so on give one iota of a damn about US law is completely absurd. Furthermore, this attitude is a fantasy even within the Anglosphere - I live in New Zealand, and I bet not one person in 100 could give me a clear statement of what rights the 1st amendment guarantees and what its limits are, beyond the barest outline.
- int_19h 4y ago
  It's a fantasy even in US. Witness all the people demanding that e.g. Facebook "respects their First Amendment rights".
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  I am Indian, and I give a damn about US law. > Furthermore, this attitude is a fantasy even within the Anglosphere - I live in New Zealand, and I bet not one person in 100 could give me a clear statement of what rights the 1st amendment guarantees and what its limits are, beyond the barest outline. They don't have to. Popular culture is saturated with a low res version of 1st amendment. What is more annoying about parochialism is every thing turning into mud slinging on the US.

hodgesrm 4y ago

This is a fair point but any discussion of free speech should be grounded with examples of systems that help maintain it, of which the US constitutional regime is one. Not all such regimes have worked, as the French Revolution demonstrated starting 2 months after the adoption of the US constitution. [0, 1] So my question would be, what other practical examples would you introduce to the discussion? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...

thagsimmons 4y ago
Oh? How successful do you think the US constitutional mechanism has really been in protecting free speech? And by "free speech" here, I mean exactly the broader sense, not constrained by a narrow constitutionalist view. To take one facet of the question, consider the World Press Freedom Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index The country I live in (New Zealand) has no constitutional free speech guarantees, and ranks 11th. The US ranks 42nd, behind East Timor, Jamaica, Slovakia, South Africa, and many other places I imagine your average American would not associate with free speech. Now, I have quibbles with the way the Press Freedom Index is assembled, and it only captures one narrow (but important) aspect of what we care about when we speak about free speech. That notwithstanding, my question to you is this: scanning down that list of countries, does it perhaps occur to you that the US may have something to learn from us, rather than the other way round?
- kurthr 4y ago
  Wait until Rupert Murdoch sells "News" there. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/jacinda-ardern-rupert-murdoch-white-men-new-zealand-prime-minister/ https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/jacinda-ardern-ru...
- int_19h 4y ago
  I lived in Russia, New Zealand, Canada, and US. Of the four, US undoubtedly is the best at protecting controversial political speech, which to me feels like exactly what you want to prioritize if you want to maintain a free society.

sabarn01 4y ago

This is a fish don't know they are wet phenomena. Government protected free speech is taken for granted here that people cannot contemplate what it means for the rest of the world.

JenrHywy 4y ago

I'm not sure if many people realize the the UNHCR has the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[0], ratified by ~180 countries. Unlike the First Amendment, the preamble the the ICCPR makes it clear that it is concerned with the responsibilities of States and citizens: Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant Article 19 of the ICCPR deals with freedom of expression, and states: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. This frames freedom of expression as a positive right, whereas the First Amendment is about negative rights. Also in contrast to the First Amendment, the power to curtail these rights is explicitly given to law-makers, in a limited fashion. Non-legal restrictions on free expression constitute a violation of rights. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

colonCapitalDee 4y ago
Freedom of speech as defined by the ICCPR is so limited as to be effectively meaningless (which is why ~180 countries have ratified it). It wouldn't protect your ability to report on military misconduct, not wear a hijab, or criticize politicians, for example.

WalterBright 4y ago

There are fundamental rights of man. Government can recognize or abrogate those rights, but cannot invent those rights. For example, if rights were invented by the government, there would be nothing about slavery that was wrong. If we say slavery violates the right to liberty, then we are saying that the right to liberty is inherent.

diordiderot 4y ago
> There are fundamental rights of man Yeah, but not really. God is dead and such.
- tekla 4y ago
  The fundamental rights of man explicitly doesn't use God as the basis for human rights.
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    Historically, some conceptions of them absolutely do. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
tstrimple 4y ago
This is ascribing some sort of mythical quality to rights. Rights are simply what a society decides should be conveyed to its people. A country could decide that their people have a right to receiving a free hoodie every November and as long as the country supports that right, those people have that right. There is nothing inherently moral about rights. Countries have many times supported the immoral rights of their people. And people's rights are only as good as the society's support for those rights. There is nothing inherent or inalienable about them.
- eldritch_4ier 4y ago
  This is exactly the root of the “atheists can’t be moral” argument. Not that any individual atheist can’t be moral for the time being, but that a godless society inevitably falls into relativism where the only good is the consensus and the only morality is what you can argue. This is one of those cases. I think we’d all be better off with an absolute basis for rights than a relativistic one.

sneak 4y ago

The assertion of the US' founders is that such rights are inherent to all people, natural rights, and inalienable. The fact that it was codified into law in a specific country is an implementation detail. The concepts of liberty in the US documents are philosophical assertions and not related to any nation. They also happen to be law in the US, but even there they don't really hold force; such "rights" are violated constantly.

nautilius 4y ago
> The assertion of the US' founders is that such rights are inherent to all people, natural rights, and inalienable. It very obviously wasn't [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
- sneak 4y ago
  Nothing of the ideology seemingly professed by the famous US founding set were ever actually implemented. Slavery is just the big obvious one but there are a million other examples of their failure to actually implement their espoused philosophy. It seems like more of an aspirational/marketing meme than anything. “As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.” -Lincoln
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

judge2020 4y ago

The reason is because the audience is likely majority US-based, US-adjacent, or their work focuses on compliance with US laws and customers more than other laws. Unless you mean the source piece by Ken White itself, which is a specifically about the first amendment and not human rights in general.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

The framework applies equally turn on US country so I'm not sure what you are objecting to. If you read the link they provided it provides definitions for different types of free speech ranging from those that are legally enshrined (or not depending on your country), to how individuals socially react and common custom.

jimbokun 4y ago

US companies power to enable free speech culture is strongly proscribed by the laws of the countries where the content is being accessed. I don't see how US tech companies could over come China's Great Firewall, for example, without the cooperation of the Chinese government.