The Musk Melt-down

[Estro Felino]

@Stevicus
I give you another example. In Italy no business owner can reject a customer. No good and service supplier can refuse to sell something to a customer.
Because businesses are not "private property" as a house is. They are public spaces, whose ownership is private.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's also what the Napoleonic civil system differs the most in.
Service providers are not allowed to limit constitutional freedoms, even if they are the proprietors of the service provider.
Since freedom of speech is a constitutional freedom, it cannot be limited by anyone, also because there is a big difference between piece of property like a house and an internet service provider.
An internet service provider is a business, and the relationships between customers and suppliers of goods and services are regulated by the EU regulations and national codes (for example we have the Code of Consumers dlgs 206/2005).

In other words, no internet provider can prevent me from exercising my freedom of thought, and in fact there are Court of Cassation judgments that ruled in favor of the social media users in Italy.

Can you espouse these views on the
internet in Italy or elsewhere in Europe.....
- Child abuse
- Fascism
- Nazism
- Insurrection

 

[Estro Felino]

So, that would be my solution. The government could create a public platform which would be free and open to all - and it would be considered public property and not viewed as some narcissist techie's own personal kingdom. Of course, the same rules that apply in a public setting, like a town square, would still apply. It wouldn't be an "anything goes" affair.

Absolutely, yes.
If the law is like that in the US, there is no other alternative than creating a public platform.
Or a state-owned social media.

 

[Estro Felino]

Can you espouse these views on the
internet in Italy or elsewhere in Europe.....
- Child abuse
- Fascism
- Nazism
- Insurrection

Give me an example of a phrase. This is too generic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Give me an example of a phrase. This is too generic.

Suppose you posted on the internet ....
"The Holocaust is a fake conspiracy.
Jews & Muslims should be jailed for crimes against Christianity.
God wants them dead."
Is this allowed?
Should the provider of a venue have the right to prohibit it/

 

[Estro Felino]

Suppose you posted on the internet ....
"The Holocaust is a fake conspiracy.
Jews & Muslims should be jailed for crimes against Christianity.
God wants them dead."
Is this allowed?
Should the provider of a venue have the right to prohibit it/

Freedom of thought is limited whenever there is a violation of the penal law.
We have written, specific laws in a penal code.
If it deals with sentences which incite to racial hatred, well...they are not allowed.
But we have a Montesquian principle that prevents judges from interpreting the law. Incitement to hatred is when you threaten/plan to harm someone. Not when you say "I dislike this religion". Because you are allowed to dislike a religion or an ideology.
Religions are not people.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Revoltingest
The US Common Law enables judge to restlessly interpret the law according to their perception of reality.
Which is something light years away from our juridical tradition.

 

[Stevicus]

It's impossible.
A street corner preacher can express all sorts of
horrible views because that's a passive platform.
But an electronic public venue is active, & run by
the people, ie, government. Offending speech
would inexorably attract regulators.

Perhaps, and as I said, it wouldn't be an anything goes affair. There would be rules and regulations, no different than that which govern people's behavior on a city street. It's not always a passive platform, either. If someone starts spouting off horrible, offending views on the streets, then people will respond.

One difference out on the street is that if someone is clearly off their rocker or perhaps drunk or mentally ill, then people can tell right away and tend to leave them alone, regardless of how outrageous they're being. That's not always immediately apparent online.

 

[Revoltingest]

Freedom of thought is limited whenever there is a violation of the penal law.
We have written, specific laws in a penal code.
If it deals with sentences which incite to racial hatred, well...they are not allowed.

I posted views that would be legal here,
even if internet providers prohibit them.
So your government simply makes more
speech illegal. Our system is different.
Things are more voluntary.

 

[Estro Felino]

I posted views that would be legal here,
even if internet providers prohibit them.
So your government simply makes more
speech illegal. Our system is different.
Things are more voluntary.

I am sorry...I didn't get it....honestly.
What do you mean by "things are more voluntary"?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am sorry...I didn't get it....honestly.
What do you mean by "things are more voluntary"?

Private enterprises censor speech on their
platforms so that advertisers don't flee.
You guys have government make that
speech illegal.

 

[Stevicus]

@Revoltingest
The US Common Law enables judge to restlessly interpret the law according to their perception of reality.
Which is something light years away from our juridical tradition.

I've noticed some differences in the way the U.S. and Europe approach the issue of freedom of expression overall. For example, at a time when US TV shows had to be more family-friendly and limited on what they could show, we would hear about more permissive attitudes in Europe on that. On the other hand, it was almost the opposite regarding shows with violent content.

It's been an ongoing issue. Some people are okay with violence on TV, but no sex or swearing. Then some are okay with sex on TV, but no violence and only light swearing. Some don't want any of it, while others think it should be completely open - with as much sex and violence and swearing that the public can stand.

 

[Estro Felino]

Private enterprises censor speech on their
platforms so that advertisers don't flee.
You guys have government make that
speech illegal.

Here freedom of speech is a very wide notion. Especially on TV. On Italian TV you will hear cursing, vulgarity, female nudity. Anything.
American TV looks and sounds like a cloistered nuns convent. Bleeping out cursing...censorship...

 

[Revoltingest]

Here freedom of speech is a very wide notion. Especially on TV. On Italian TV you will hear cursing, vulgarity, female nudity. Anything.
American TV looks and sounds like a cloistered nuns convent. Bleeping out cursing...censorship...

And yet, you still have much political
& social speech that's illegal.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've noticed some differences in the way the U.S. and Europe approach the issue of freedom of expression overall. For example, at a time when US TV shows had to be more family-friendly and limited on what they could show, we would hear about more permissive attitudes in Europe on that. On the other hand, it was almost the opposite regarding shows with violent content.

It's been an ongoing issue. Some people are okay with violence on TV, but no sex or swearing. Then some are okay with sex on TV, but no violence and only light swearing. Some don't want any of it, while others think it should be completely open - with as much sex and violence and swearing that the public can stand.

Yes. Read post #233.
I add that violence is much less tolerated here.
Sex talk, cursing, female nudity...is everywhere on national TV.

 

[Estro Felino]

And yet, you still have much political
& social speech that's illegal.

The Duce's granddaughter here arguing with another politician.
At a certain point. at 0:30 she says %&@°/°*@(§ to another politician.
Did you see censorship? Bleeping out?

Spoiler: Cursing in Italian

Here nothing is censored.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here nothing is censored.

You just told me otherwise,
ie, that some speech is illegal.

 

[Estro Felino]

You just told me otherwise,
ie, that some speech is illegal.

There are cases, of course, where the law prevents crimes.
But political discourse is something in abstract.
It's a fact that there is no political correctness, here.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are cases, of course, where the law prevents crimes.
But political discourse is something in abstract.
It's a fact that there is no political correctness, here.

Your political discourse appears to be
more limited than ours.
Italy gets new law punishing Holocaust denial - World Jewish Congress
Vatican Says Italy’s Hate Speech Law Blunts Freedom of Speech
Here in Ameristan, censorship is done more by
owners of venues in order to push their own
agenda, or to keep advertisers.
I prefer our system....less government power.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your political discourse appears to be
more limited than ours.
Italy gets new law punishing Holocaust denial - World Jewish Congress
Vatican Says Italy’s Hate Speech Law Blunts Freedom of Speech
Here in Ameristan, censorship is done more by
owners of venues in order to push their own
agenda, or to keep advertisers.
I prefer our system....less government power.

You didn't read the second article. The second article says that that law wasn't passed by the Senate because it was considered unconstitutional. Because it would have been against freedom of speech.
It didn't pass.
Zan bill: Italy’s senate blocks anti-homophobia law