What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression?

[Minoa]

Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40974069 and http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... KKCN1B10QP

This thread is about incitement to violence, hatred or racism on the Internet in general.

As you may be a aware, technological firms have been cracking down on content that incites violence, hatred or racism, and many tech firms have done so reluctantly because they fear that it would be harder to argue against government challenges to the freedom of expression. However, I am seeing that the concerns largely originate from the absence of a solid framework to tackle violence, hatred or racism on the Internet, hence I can see why the EFF is very cautious right now.

There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while there are people in the US who hold freedom of expression so dearly, as to interpret the First Amendment as absolute regardless of context.¹

In my opinion, I agree that there needs to be a unified framework to tackle violence, hatred or racism on the Internet, but also to set guarantees to protect freedom of expression in general, as well as the right to privacy, and also clarify that such intervention may only be used to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society.

The main discussion point is as the title says: What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression? In my opinion, I do not consider incitement to violence, hatred or racism as part of free speech, because allowing it unconditionally defeats the whole idea of being able to express ideas freely, without fear of violence or repression.

¹ The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”: and that’s it.

[Benjabobaria]

As long as one is not advocating/inciting/taking part in violence I'd say it's alright. Racists that are nonviolent and not advocating violence/ethnic cleansing but still are very bad people should be ridiculed/ignored but not shut down by the government. (I am American, probably have a wider view of free speech than Europeans as OP said)

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Freedom of expression should be classified as more of a peaceful-type of thing. Groups such as antifa express their views wholeheartedly, but usually are very violent when doing so. That's when you go over the limit. I wish there were more people like MLK Jr still around. Those people are the ideal ones to express their opinions while still maintaining a peaceful composure.

[Benjabobaria]

It's also nice to have defamation laws. If someone makes something up, shares it with the world, and causes significant damage to you, you should be able to sue them.
In America libel suits are rather limited, but it is still possible to win them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... mation_law

[Laeden]

The problem lies at the definition of ''racism'' of ''hate speech''. For instance, I could label anything that goes against my ideology as ''hate speech'', as usually the left-wing militants do. And that is problematic because I'd be using this expression to restrain your right to express your thoughts. I do think that we cannot use freedom of expression to insult one another, to abuse, defame or calumniate. Except for that, I believe we should have the freedom to speak whataver we please.
And yes, I do think that even nazis should have the right to express their opinions. If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.
And it is extremely problematic to see social networks openly restricting what it unilaterally considers to be ''hate speech'' or ''racism''. I do think that a private network lacks the autority and, even more so, the legitimacy, to determine what is hate speech and to act against it. It is utterly regrettable that we're prohibiting some ideas, no matter how extreme or unfair they are, from the democratic arena. Everyone is entitled to the right of think and, therefore, to express his or hers thoughs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The moment someone threatens the social order, they should be silenced.

[Aidannadia]

The problem lies at the definition of ''racism'' of ''hate speech''. For instance, I could label anything that goes against my ideology as ''hate speech'', as usually the left-wing militants do. And that is problematic because I'd be using this expression to restrain your right to express your thoughts. I do think that we cannot use freedom of expression to insult one another, to abuse, defame or calumniate. Except for that, I believe we should have the freedom to speak whataver we please.
And yes, I do think that even nazis should have the right to express their opinions. If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.
And it is extremely problematic to see social networks openly restricting what it unilaterally considers to be ''hate speech'' or ''racism''. I do think that a private network lacks the autority and, even more so, the legitimacy, to determine what is hate speech and to act against it. It is utterly regrettable that we're prohibiting some ideas, no matter how extreme or unfair they are, from the democratic arena. Everyone is entitled to the right of think and, therefore, to express his or hers thoughs.

At least in America under the current way of doing things, why should a private entity not control the space that it legally owns? American thought says that if one does not enjoy the policies of one or another private entity, they will cease doing business with them and be on their way to a different provider.

[Dumb Ideologies]

No inciting violence, no glorifying, attempting to justify or excusing terrorist activities, no endangering public safety through objectively false statements (i.e. shouting "fire" in a theatre when there isn't one), no sharing of people's private information without their permission.

That covers it, more or less.

That's what the law on the free speech of private citizens should handle, but government policy needs to be proactive to reduce wider hatreds through educational policy, regulating newspaper and TV content, and restricting the capacity for non-integrating minorities to self-segregate by banning extreme religious dress, non-secular systems of resolving civil disputes, and religious schooling/homeschooling.

[Mike the Progressive]

Jerking off in front of a school.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The European Council of Human Rights has developed quite a comprehensive line of reasoning surrounding the freedom of speech, which I am inclined to agree with on the largest part. It holds a very liberal view of freedom of speech, as put down in article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights:

ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

They clearly state that freedom of speech is not without bounds, however. One of my favourite sentences uttered by the Court is the following, from the Handyside Judgement (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["Handyside"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-57499"]}):

Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.

In general, the Court stipulates that there is freedom of expression, unless this freedom yields unacceptable damages to the democratic society. Take, for example, a Finnish politician and public functionary whose pictures were taken by paparazzi. The Court agreed that, because he is a public functionary, his privacy weighs less than it would to a private citizen who is not in the public eye, and the freedom of expression of the journalists is deemed more important. The same goes for a lewd painting of a few Austrian politicians: while this would normally constitute libel, the Court agreed that free speech regarding politicians could not easily be undermined. However, the same works both ways. Politicians, in turn, have been given a greater freedom in their speech by the Court because of their public position. Then again, the Court also agreed that they also carry a greater burden of responsibility.

All in all, freedom of expression must be extended as far as a democratic society will allow it to go.

[Minoa]

If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.

Cracking down on racist content is only one main piece of the puzzle to resolve the ongoing issue: I believe that the other main piece is helping and de-radicalising those taken in by such beliefs. I do not believe that it is impossible, given that Derek Black (the son of the founder of Stormfront) gave up white nationalism.

The main point of de-radicalising those taken in by such beliefs is to show them that the African, Jewish, Muslim and the other ethnic minorities are still the same human beings: that is not to say that there is no bad people in the world, but the idea of a master race and an inferior race is ridiculous pseudoscience that had devastating consequences in World War II, and even as recently as the ISIL persecution of Yazidis.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The problem lies at the definition of ''racism'' of ''hate speech''. For instance, I could label anything that goes against my ideology as ''hate speech'', as usually the left-wing militants do. And that is problematic because I'd be using this expression to restrain your right to express your thoughts. I do think that we cannot use freedom of expression to insult one another, to abuse, defame or calumniate. Except for that, I believe we should have the freedom to speak whataver we please.
And yes, I do think that even nazis should have the right to express their opinions. If we take this right from them, we won't be dealing with the real issue, which is the very existence of nazis in the XXI century. We will be merely hiding it.
And it is extremely problematic to see social networks openly restricting what it unilaterally considers to be ''hate speech'' or ''racism''. I do think that a private network lacks the autority and, even more so, the legitimacy, to determine what is hate speech and to act against it. It is utterly regrettable that we're prohibiting some ideas, no matter how extreme or unfair they are, from the democratic arena. Everyone is entitled to the right of think and, therefore, to express his or hers thoughs.

Calling something 'hate speech' does not make it hate speech in the legal sense, as much as me calling you a thief makes you a thief. People can say what they want; it is up to judge and jury (or just the judge, in a civilised society) to determine if something fits the legal requirements to be hate speech.

[Risottia]

There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while the US interpretation of the freedom of speech, at least according to the First Amendment, appears absolute.

It isn't absolute even in America. One cannot use the freedom of speech to disseminate State secrets, as example.

What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression?

I'd say that society should forbid:
-incitement to crime (telling someone to commit a crime)
-violation of state secrets, trade/commercial secrets (patents), judiciary secrets (documents about ongoing investigations, whereabouts of key witnesses...)
-defamation of a group, spreading hate (telling "human group X is inferior and deserves no rights/should be chased away/should be exterminated"...) and deliberately spreading lies about historical facts with the intent of spreading hate (telling "the Holocaust/slavery is a myth used by the Jews/Blacks7 to make Germans/whites feel guilty, but we'll fight them back and regain our pride"...)
-violation of a person's privacy (telling publicly, dunno, "Minoa and Risottia make the beast with two backs ev'ry night", or "Max Barry picks his nose", no matter if false or true)

[Dushan]

There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while the US interpretation of the freedom of speech, at least according to the First Amendment, appears absolute.

In my opinion, I agree that there needs to be a unified framework to tackle violence, hatred or racism on the Internet, but also to set guarantees to protect freedom of expression in general, as well as the right to privacy, and also clarify that such intervention may only be used to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society.

I may add at this point that despite such legislations and laws (on both national and EU level) in place, they have done little to contain the spread of hate-speek and hate-propaganda from whatever form extremism on the internet in the past years, and their ramifications are rather allowing for abuse on political ground, especially when a government tries to silence criticism. (as the german government does currently)

The main discussion point is as the title says: What are the reasonable limits of freedom of expression? In my opinion, I do not consider incitement to violence, hatred or racism as part of free speech, because allowing it unconditionally defeats the whole idea of being able to express ideas freely, without fear of violence or repression.

I personally do prefer the american system, now that I got used to it. I may say, that it took a while to break my ideological conditioning.

That being said, it is also depending very much on what political and discursive culture is in existence. Such culture as far as existing, is a dynamic subject and cannot be mandated or decreed by Law. Nor, and the past years have shown this amply, can those dynamics be in a meaningful manners be contained without resorting to oppressive measures.

The problem here is not one to be addressed by Law, but by common sense. In the lack of such common sense, the best Laws and regulations will not help out.

So we should rather look at Internet Culture than at the law or limits and what we observing there is an increasingly aggressive and chaotic environment. Societies and its members in general have are yet develop techniques (and traditions) to handle the innerconnectivity of the Information Age and it's consequences.

tl;dr: If "society" cannot figure out it's stuff on it's own, laws wont really help unless going all Singapore.

[Minoa]

There are also sharp continental differences between how we (in Europe) and our friends across the Atlantic interpret of freedom of expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises reasonable limitations to protect the safety and freedoms of others in a democratic society, while the US interpretation of the freedom of speech, at least according to the First Amendment, appears absolute.

It isn't absolute even in America. One cannot use the freedom of speech to disseminate State secrets, as example.

I am aware of the rift between the US government and tech firms over whistleblowing, but if I recall correctly, there are some who believe that the First Amendment appears absolute. However, I will clarify on the last part.

EDIT: OP updated.

[Phoenicaea]

that s a deep and unconfortable question; nevertheless in the application of it I oppose at forbidding the kind of speech we are referring to. I don t see the summoned hatred, violence, racism as an eligible reason to say it to be criminal offence speech

[Arumbia67]

Advocating violence or harm against anyone, damaging/ advocating damaging private or public property, and of course anything that could be considered libel.

[Taostic Aesthetics]

There should be no limits on the freedom of expression.

[Major-Tom]

Jerking off in front of a school.

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.

[Taostic Aesthetics]

Jerking off in front of a school.

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.

Inciting hatred shouldn't be a limit. We saw this with Geert Wilder's speech in, 2014 if I remember correctly. These kind of things are way too open for interpretation.

[Major-Tom]

Do you have something you'd like to share with us, Mike?

In all seriousness, I'd say inciting/taking part in violence, as several people have already said. The line should be drawn there. Or arguing that Creed is solid rock music, that should also be illegal.

Inciting hatred shouldn't be a limit. We saw this with Geert Wilder's speech in, 2014 if I remember correctly. These kind of things are way too open for interpretation.

You're gonna have to elaborate.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There should be no limits on the freedom of expression.

Should whisteblowing be illegal?
Shouting 'bomb' in a crowded place?

[Major-Tom]

Oh, and someone else mentioned it, libel/slander, that's also important to have limitations on.

[Taostic Aesthetics]

There should be no limits on the freedom of expression.

Should whisteblowing be illegal?
Shouting 'bomb' in a crowded place?

You see the thing with freedom in my opinion is that freedom implies you do not harm others. The NAP is a good measuring point.

Whistleblowing shouldn't be illegal.
Shouting bomb in a crowded place shouldn't be illegal either, but you should be liable for the consequences.

You're gonna have to elaborate.

tl;dr Geert Wilders asked his public whether they wanted less or more morrocans - crowd reacted with less less less, whereupon he reacted with ''we'll take care of that''.

He got fined afaik and found guilty of inciting hatred - which in my opinion, did not happen.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Should whisteblowing be illegal?
Shouting 'bomb' in a crowded place?

You see the thing with freedom in my opinion is that freedom implies you do not harm others. The NAP is a good measuring point.

Whistleblowing shouldn't be illegal.
Shouting bomb in a crowded place shouldn't be illegal either, but you should be liable for the consequences.

You're gonna have to elaborate.

tl;dr Geert Wilders asked his public whether they wanted less or more morrocans - crowd reacted with less less less, whereupon he reacted with ''we'll take care of that''.

He got fined afaik and found guilty of inciting hatred - which in my opinion, did not happen.

So, you're saying there should be limits based on harm done to others. A freedom doesn't imply that you don't harm others, that's an external limit.

So, no criminal persecution, then, for someone who knowingly endangered the lives of others? Just because he used his voice?

What about causing a run on the banks?