And when you put it in context with the next sentence “It has to be balanced with other human rights." it's obvious to Germans, because that's "Praktische Konkordanz", which is absolute dogma in German constitutional law.
Could you describe more about the relation of Practical concordance with free speech laws in Germany? I'm not too familiar. And what does free speech conflict with?
I didn't mean it to be an accusation, although I see how it could be seen as such. So apologies!
Praktische Konkordanz gets very technical fast, but if you have a limitless basic right (so that the Basic Law doesn't spell out limits itself – freedom of art would be such a limitless basic right), it may only be limited by other basic rights.
If I paint a picture on the wall of your house, a surface reading or literal interpretation of the Basic Law might come to the result that since the exercise art is free, nobody can stop me.
Obviously that would be stupid. :-)
But in order to limit that basic right we need to find another basic right that is being infringed upon by the limitless exercise of the first basic right.
In this case the most obvious one is the right to property.
And then you get a lot of legal analysis why in this specific case limiting the right to free exercise of art should indeed be limited, and where exactly the limit lies.
I mean it's all obvious, right? I doubt that any legal order would actually use strict priorities to basic rights, but that's my point: if you spell out scenarios Schmidt's words aren't improper, nor surprising.
She could mean something broader, more nefarious, but just from reading those words I can only conclude this is totally common interpretation of laws and constitutions.
People on Twitter just choose to interpret those words unfairly, because… Facebook.
There are lots of examples of speech that isn't protected by the US 1st amendment and most people would NOT consider "free speech" in other places, but which would be protected under an ABSOLUTE right:
* Perjury and lying to the police, FBI etc
* Conspiracy to commit crimes
* Leaking national secrets
* Incitement to riot
* Child pornography possession, distribution etc.
* Revenge porn
* "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre"
* Free speech generally doesn't apply to civil actions (it can to government cases), so you can't use free speech to escape civil liabilities for say copyright infringement or libel. Especially in the states this can be a major restriction as someone richer than you can bankrupt you with lawyers fees even if you are saying true and pertinent things...
The limits of what speech is protected differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The fact that absolutely all speech isn't absolutely protected is something a lot of people struggle with until you get into the details...
Yeah everyone, he was really just saying people should have free speech, the way it was understood in civilized countries before crypto-commies who secretly love authority decided they know everything! It's all just a big misunderstanding!
That's not what people who advocate for absolute free speech think. It is an aspect of our broader right to liberty: the right to take such actions as each of us judges proper, so long as we do not initiate force against others. Defamation laws protect are to protect people who feel have been subject to libel speech in a way that affects their reputation or careers for example.
That's not what people who advocate for absolute free speech think.
I have no opinion on that. My comment was about the statement 'free speech is not an absolute human right' whose truth is obvious enough to not be very interesting.
The only reason libel and violent threat are taken seriously is because people go to so much trouble in preventing them. If libel were made legal, people would think harder about the truthfulness of what they read/hear for example.
At least I'm still allowed to have what ever kind of thoughts I want, or will we advance enough technologically to start censoring those as well, you know, your right to think what ever you want isn't absolute, you know...
People already ask questions like "but why are my feelings less important than your ability to say what you want". If more people fall for this, I believe we will inevitably reach that point.
This makes me want to bring up a major concern I have: self censorship in expression leads to self censorship in thought. When people have to watch what they say they begin to watch what they think. This is the main reason I make a point not to censor myself in my day to day life.
You have an absolute right to breath the air around you. You have the absolute right to think or feel any emotions that pass through you. You have an absolute right to express these ideas and emotions. You have the absolute right to fight to preserve your own life from immediate threat. The last two are already legislated away in some jurisdictions. We've been barreling down a slippery slope since the very start of civilization.
Our politicians (former and present) are a shame upon our nation. It's not surprising that this kind of language comes at a time when our parliament members have almost unanimously approved sending refugees out to camps outside our own country for processing. [1]
The cry of Denmark is more and more a sick "keep the nation pure" that echoes other countries across the globe in their moves firmly to authoritarian purity politics. Where does this stop and when?
I disagree, I think it is. I don't see what right of anyone is infringed by my exercise of speech.
And even if there was, why would that right be absolute, and not also be balanced by my right to speech?
I'm sorry but my rights don't come from the pontifications of some privileged rich white woman in one of the most privileged nations in the world.
She has no perspective, she can go live in real adversity for some time, know what oppression really feels like, know what it feels like to be denied basic human rights, and then come back and tell us again that what really needs to happen to make the world a better place is that we should accept that the billionaire class dictates our rights to us.
The video is her speaking about what limitations on political speech is appropriate for Facebook to impose. Facebook is not a government, Facebook is not in a position to make things like violent threats or incitement legal, even if they wanted to.
This is about what legal speech should be allowed on Facebook.
People. Amongst themselves. Once you start bringing governments into it, things start to go downhill pretty quickly in the direction of what makes it easier for the government to do it's job.
It's part of why the Bill of Rights was written tge way it was. To make it completely unambiguous that on these grounds, no Government so established under the Constitution shall the infringement 9f those principles be considered lawful.
27 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 47.0 ms ] threadCould you describe more about the relation of Practical concordance with free speech laws in Germany? I'm not too familiar. And what does free speech conflict with?
Also, she's former Danish PM.
Praktische Konkordanz gets very technical fast, but if you have a limitless basic right (so that the Basic Law doesn't spell out limits itself – freedom of art would be such a limitless basic right), it may only be limited by other basic rights.
If I paint a picture on the wall of your house, a surface reading or literal interpretation of the Basic Law might come to the result that since the exercise art is free, nobody can stop me.
Obviously that would be stupid. :-)
But in order to limit that basic right we need to find another basic right that is being infringed upon by the limitless exercise of the first basic right.
In this case the most obvious one is the right to property.
And then you get a lot of legal analysis why in this specific case limiting the right to free exercise of art should indeed be limited, and where exactly the limit lies.
I mean it's all obvious, right? I doubt that any legal order would actually use strict priorities to basic rights, but that's my point: if you spell out scenarios Schmidt's words aren't improper, nor surprising.
She could mean something broader, more nefarious, but just from reading those words I can only conclude this is totally common interpretation of laws and constitutions.
People on Twitter just choose to interpret those words unfairly, because… Facebook.
* Perjury and lying to the police, FBI etc
* Conspiracy to commit crimes
* Leaking national secrets
* Incitement to riot
* Child pornography possession, distribution etc.
* Revenge porn
* "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre"
* Free speech generally doesn't apply to civil actions (it can to government cases), so you can't use free speech to escape civil liabilities for say copyright infringement or libel. Especially in the states this can be a major restriction as someone richer than you can bankrupt you with lawyers fees even if you are saying true and pertinent things...
The limits of what speech is protected differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The fact that absolutely all speech isn't absolutely protected is something a lot of people struggle with until you get into the details...
The cry of Denmark is more and more a sick "keep the nation pure" that echoes other countries across the globe in their moves firmly to authoritarian purity politics. Where does this stop and when?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/denmark-passes...
And even if there was, why would that right be absolute, and not also be balanced by my right to speech?
I'm sorry but my rights don't come from the pontifications of some privileged rich white woman in one of the most privileged nations in the world.
She has no perspective, she can go live in real adversity for some time, know what oppression really feels like, know what it feels like to be denied basic human rights, and then come back and tell us again that what really needs to happen to make the world a better place is that we should accept that the billionaire class dictates our rights to us.
Go threaten to murder someone in front of a police offer and then see if your theory holds.
The video is her speaking about what limitations on political speech is appropriate for Facebook to impose. Facebook is not a government, Facebook is not in a position to make things like violent threats or incitement legal, even if they wanted to.
This is about what legal speech should be allowed on Facebook.
I watched the video. Frankly, I disagree with your interpretation of her statements.
Free speech is a right that must be balanced against other rights. That's all she says.
If you disagree with that, you believe in a type of free speech absolutism that has never existed in the real world.
Let me take a wild guess... the government???
It's part of why the Bill of Rights was written tge way it was. To make it completely unambiguous that on these grounds, no Government so established under the Constitution shall the infringement 9f those principles be considered lawful.