How "free" is Freedom of Speech in your country?

[Stevicus]

Hmm

Lot of hate speech in the bible

Yep.

 

[stvdv]

I am not sure why they pull some things. Perhaps they fear bad public relations and they do feel pressure from politicians to moderate things. But the law now basically gives them free reign to host a lot of ugly, nasty and false stuff with no liability. I am not sure where the line should be drawn but now it is up to unscrupulous folks like Zuckerberg to decide.

Thank you. I must say this surprises me, that they are given free reign.

Yesterday I was just thinking, Whats App might be history soon. A few month ago I read that when you post something on Facebook, that you can be jailed for it, EVEN if you delete it 1 second after posting it and someone got a screenshot (anyway Facebook will have proof of anything you post).

That I find quite sickening (I don't like this lawsuit hype; its destroying the world IMO). That's 1 reason I don't post anything on Facebook, and rather ditch Whats App too. I discovered Telegram to be much better. You are given the Freedom to edit whatever you post, and you can delete anything you posted at anytime, even delete/vaporize it on the other's Telegram's account (with Whats App you only have a few minutes to reconsider, and even if not deleted in time, you can be jailed for it). People make mistakes, and learn, and to fine them or jail them for posting things ignorantly I think is not useful and even harmful.

If someone writes you a Telegram App you don't like, you can just delete that person's Telegram message yourself. That's a great option, and that's how it should be IMO. Why let government interfere with everything (I do understand, this lawsuit hype brings in lots of money of course) when you easily can give people the tools to deal with it themselves as done in Telegram App?

IF people know these extra features of privacy that Telegram provides, all would ditch Whats App in a second I think; I am done with Zuckerberg

 

[stvdv]

The church has been fear mongering for centuries.
Bible is full of hate speech.

And they were good at that too, and their formula worked perfectly (for cashing in, not to establish Peace on Earth though)

Interfaith hostility goes right with
hostility toward all other outside the
chosen church.

Long way to go, before followers of Jesus follow Jesus' words "thou shall not judge"

Hmm

Lot of hate speech in the bible

Nobody, no sane person, will argue that I think

 

[stvdv]

It seems to be more and more common in recent years.

I understand there is much fear in the past 12 month due to "C-nineteen fear mongering" of people in high places even. Bu I think that fear is in most humans in some form. And its easily triggered. For years governments triggered it with Russia/America war thread, now we have terrorism more visible. And above all, now with the internet, we get to see everything, whereas in the past we only saw maybe 1% of what we see now.

And another problem is that negative News seems to sell better, hence the journalists write fear inducing stories, as well as Hollywood etc.

So, we can conclude that people are quite masochistic choosing to read all this negative News. Maybe its a way to find a way for their fear of death.

 

[stvdv]

Religion can't engage in things like human sacrifice.

 

[stvdv]

which was quite the opposite of mainstream ideas.

Was it ignorant dismissal of what is known - in other words utter lying and causing misery by deceiving those who take it seriously?

NO.
And this man is one of the smartest politicians I know, who has a lot of knowledge, and can't be fooled easily (just smarter than the others)
But of course he is still a politician, who I all trust as much as I trust "Punch and Judy"

Yes - there is NO relationship.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I hope you are right on this; I am not yet convinced though
But its nice to see a more positive view on this than my view; and time will show the real truth soon, anyway

 

[Twilight Hue]

How "free" is Freedom of Speech in your country? Did you notice changes past 12 months, due to C-nineteen?

Now, with C -nineteen, it's easy for me to see, whether or not Freedom of Speech is still there or curbed a bit

I will make a start, by sharing how I experience this in my country, Holland (the Netherlands)

In Holland we still have Freedom of Speech, and today I saw an interview with one of the major players in politics in the Netherlands, who gave his opinion about C-nineteen, which was quite the opposite of mainstream ideas. I was happy to see this. At least we still have Freedom of Speech, which I find very important, and I believe this should not be taken away in name of C-nineteen, because of endangering health. And I am pleased to see, that Google and YouTube did not take this interview down yet, probably because the interview was in Dutch, though it had Google translate subtitle available, something I have seen a little to much, the past few months, which IMO is a very unhealthy development.

Of course I can understand that other people, who are very scared of death and health impact, prefer to curb Freedom of Speech, to make sure that everything goes the way, that their fear wants it to go. But I don't like to risk losing Freedom of Speech. And I don't have this fear (***), so I stand in this very open and fearless. I only want the truth, and IMO, this can't be found by curbing Freedom of Speech out of fear/anxiety about certain diseases.

So, how "Free" is Freedom of Speech in your country, how you see/experience it? Do you feel more scared now, do you have fear, did your fear increase in the past year? Do you see a change in how you see Freedom of Speech due to all the stuff that happened in the past year?

Notes:
(***): I do remember that the first time I heard about it, that I felt a little fear. Because they described it as a deadly one, in mainstream news, which I believed at the time more than I do now (due to experience and more nuanced mainstream news)

Irony.

After all the criticism against
oligarchs and corporations, censorship is defended when it comes to the media giants.

 

[stvdv]

Irony.

After all the criticism against
oligarchs and corporations, censorship is defended when it comes to the media giants.

 

[SomeRandom]

Irony.

After all the criticism against
oligarchs and corporations, censorship is defended when it comes to the media giants.

Well they are private companies, no? And private companies can do as they please. Or so Americans keep telling me, anyway.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well they are private companies, no? And private companies can do as they please. Or so Americans keep telling me, anyway.

That wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a monopoly.

 

[SomeRandom]

That wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a monopoly.

Agreed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm

Lot of hate speech in the bible

Yeah and that is man-made. Thus it is humans.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, how "Free" is Freedom of Speech in your country, how you see/experience it? Do you feel more scared now, do you have fear, did your fear increase in the past year? Do you see a change in how you see Freedom of Speech due to all the stuff that happened in the past year?

I have a question (to check if I understand correctly): Do they mean with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", that the Law comes first, and should not follow Rules of Religion. At first glance I would expect them to write (make no law disrespecting an establishment of religion), but that could be interpreted that Religion can do whatever it wants, not obeying the Country Laws.

That is a quotation from the written US Constitution. We call it 'The Establishment Clause'. (link here wikipedia entry)

This is the first amendment in order, meaning it was added to the Constitution before any others. Amendments are bureaucratically far more challenging than new laws and are supreme above mere laws, so they are considered to be relatively permanent. This amendment prevents Congress from legitimately promoting any religion or preventing any. Over time legal precedents in the Supreme Court have worked to interpret any contradictions between this and other provisions in the Constitution, such that religion is not an excuse to commit atrocities. On the other hand some typically illegal practices are allowed for religion's sake and some exceptions are made. For example there is a large religious group here called 'The Amish'. They aren't required like other citizens are to send all of their children to school for 12 years. For religious reasons the government makes an exception for them. It may not prevent them from having and practicing their religioni. A line is drawn, and whenever possible the courts allow exceptions and exemptions for religions. Religious buildings and religious incomes are not taxed, here.

 

[stvdv]

That is a quotation from the written US Constitution. We call it 'The Establishment Clause'. (link here wikipedia entry)

This is the first amendment in order, meaning it was added to the Constitution before any others. Amendments are bureaucratically far more challenging than new laws and are supreme above mere laws, so they are considered to be relatively permanent. This amendment prevents Congress from legitimately promoting any religion or preventing any. Over time legal precedents in the Supreme Court have worked to interpret any contradictions between this and other provisions in the Constitution, such that religion is not an excuse to commit atrocities.

Thank you for this explanation. Now it makes more sense to me; neither promote nor prevent any religion.

That's quite amazing, that they made this Law so long ago. In those years America had mainly Christians, but I also saw, that the total number of people in America just was around 6 million. And I also read that they expect Atheism to overpass Christianity in the year 2063. Wow, Atheism is growing fast, and they do it without proselytizing

On the other hand some typically illegal practices are allowed for religion's sake and some exceptions are made. For example there is a large religious group here called 'The Amish'. They aren't required like other citizens are to send all of their children to school for 12 years. For religious reasons the government makes an exception for them. It may not prevent them from having and practicing their religioni. A line is drawn, and whenever possible the courts allow exceptions and exemptions for religions. Religious buildings and religious incomes are not taxed, here.

Again amazing, how tolerant they were in those years. I wonder if they would make the same laws nowadays, if they had the chance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thank you for this explanation. Now it makes more sense to me; neither promote nor prevent any religion.

That's quite amazing, that they made this Law so long ago. In those years America had mainly Christians, but I also saw, that the total number of people in America just was around 6 million. And I also read that they expect Atheism to overpass Christianity in the year 2063. Wow, Atheism is growing fast, and they do it without proselytizing


Again amazing, how tolerant they were in those years. I wonder if they would make the same laws nowadays, if they had the chance.

Yes, however at the time it happened it had been a long time coming. It could have happened much sooner. They built upon fresh experiences with religious coercion, and many were from countries of Europe which were emerging from longstanding conflicts between protestant and catholic empires. England had only just fought off Philip of Spain in the late 1500's. Philip tried to use Catholicism to take over all of Europe, claiming that protestants had to be converted. Spain had recently also driven out the Muslims. This was still fresh in everyone's minds.

 

[stvdv]

Yes, however at the time it happened it had been a long time coming. It could have happened much sooner. They built upon fresh experiences with religious coercion, and many were from countries of Europe which were emerging from longstanding conflicts between protestant and catholic empires. England had only just fought off Philip of Spain in the late 1500's. Philip tried to use Catholicism to take over all of Europe, claiming that protestants had to be converted. Spain had recently also driven out the Muslims. This was still fresh in everyone's minds.

Remembering all this, we did improve quite a bit, in those few hundred years. This fanaticism is still alive, hence it's good to stay alert. Evolution really goes slow. Before such fanatical thoughts are really transformed takes thousands of years it seems. Sometimes I think "my progress is so slow" but seeing it in this context (small improvement in a few hundred years), then my personal progress is not that bad after all.

And as you say, Philip tried to use Catholicism to take over all of Europe, claiming protestants had to be converted. So, that could mean that the problem is not even in the religion, but more in some power hungry individual, but still these believers let themselves be used by Philip.

 

[stvdv]

Well they are private companies, no? And private companies can do as they please. Or so Americans keep telling me, anyway.

Yes, I have observed that too, that Americans believe this to be true

Or so Americans keep telling me, anyway.

I did see a YouTube recently that these private companies can be stopped by government also ... at least in Australia they managed to do that

And today I saw that Huawei is close to getting banned from India now also ... China won't be happy, and I expect them to make threats soon

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, I have observed that too, that Americans believe this to be true

Ironically I see it more from Republicans. The so called self declared “champions of free speech.” The leftists often point it out ironically.

I did see a YouTube recently that these private companies can be stopped by government also ... at least in Australia they managed to do that

I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

Our government is probably a little more strict than the US with regards to misinformation. Especially if it’s misinformation that is detrimental or otherwise harms people. But we still have freedom of speech. No one is entitled to a free platform though. Not sure why people often conflate the two. You can say whatever you want, but Twitter or Google or YouTube etc are not legally obligated to let you use their platform to do so. Even in the US

And today I saw that Huawei is close to getting banned from India now also ... China won't be happy, and I expect them to make threats soon

Perhaps

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's currently being streamrolled by big tech and corporations.

 

[stvdv]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

I saw below video