7 ms·

What’s the difference between Free Speech and Freedom of Expression?

ImJamal 2y ago
Usually it means you can't say so called hate speech.
braiamp 2y ago
> The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.851476 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85... It normally boils down to a <we allow this, except when this>, vs <we allow everything without restrictions>. There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Comparison_to_the_US_First_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
- lxgr 2y ago
  Maybe aspirationally, but practically, even the First Amendment has limits: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.
rtsil 2y ago
In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive). However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .
- Aerroon 2y ago
  >In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone. Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    And the entire point of constitutional rights is that they should make the society better. There is no inherent value in abstract principles. Broadly speaking, freedom of speech can mean two roughly orthogonal things: 1. Lack of government censorship. 2. Freedom of speech as an outcome: a society where people can speak their minds without excessive consequences. Sense 2 is inherently vague and can't be regulated, as people won't agree on when the consequences are excessive. But it's usually what people want when they care about the freedom of speech. The two senses are sometimes opposed. If you say something other people find unpleasant and a million people decide to ruin your life, it's clearly against freedom of speech in sense 2. But if you have laws against such mob justice, they can easily violate freedom of speech in sense 1. Freedom of speech in sense 2 is more about culture than government regulations. If you have a highly polarized society, you can't have freedom of speech in that sense.
  - rtsil 2y ago
    The "harm" is in relation to other people's constitutional freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech isn't inherently superior to, say, freedom of assembly, freedom of belief, the right to safety in one's person and one's properties, the right to vote, and so on... It's a question of value: either you think Freedom of Speech is the highest form of freedom and right that one can hold, and all the other freedoms must come second, or that all freedom and rights are equal, and the role of the Constitution and the law is to find a balance between those.
- 2y ago
fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago
Expression is just a broader term.
carlosjobim 2y ago
If you write something, you're not technically speaking. Freedom of expression covers more broadly.

Usually it means you can't say so called hate speech.

> The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.851476 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85... It normally boils down to a <we allow this, except when this>, vs <we allow everything without restrictions>. There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Comparison_to_the_US_First_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...

lxgr 2y ago
Maybe aspirationally, but practically, even the First Amendment has limits: Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.

rtsil 2y ago

In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive). However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .

Aerroon 2y ago
>In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom. But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone. Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  And the entire point of constitutional rights is that they should make the society better. There is no inherent value in abstract principles. Broadly speaking, freedom of speech can mean two roughly orthogonal things: 1. Lack of government censorship. 2. Freedom of speech as an outcome: a society where people can speak their minds without excessive consequences. Sense 2 is inherently vague and can't be regulated, as people won't agree on when the consequences are excessive. But it's usually what people want when they care about the freedom of speech. The two senses are sometimes opposed. If you say something other people find unpleasant and a million people decide to ruin your life, it's clearly against freedom of speech in sense 2. But if you have laws against such mob justice, they can easily violate freedom of speech in sense 1. Freedom of speech in sense 2 is more about culture than government regulations. If you have a highly polarized society, you can't have freedom of speech in that sense.
- rtsil 2y ago
  The "harm" is in relation to other people's constitutional freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech isn't inherently superior to, say, freedom of assembly, freedom of belief, the right to safety in one's person and one's properties, the right to vote, and so on... It's a question of value: either you think Freedom of Speech is the highest form of freedom and right that one can hold, and all the other freedoms must come second, or that all freedom and rights are equal, and the role of the Constitution and the law is to find a balance between those.
2y ago

fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago

Expression is just a broader term.

carlosjobim 2y ago

If you write something, you're not technically speaking. Freedom of expression covers more broadly.