Any other countries I have missed?
If the U.S. wants this to be allowed, it is your business. But it is ours to decide, if we want to allow nazis synmpathy newspapers advocating killing of the jew. Generally, the americans are lost in their arrogance here, as always.
See how I'm doing this without sarcasm and hyperbole, giving respect and thought to both sides and avoiding polemics? That's how you can tell I want a good faith discussion about this. Based on your posts, I can't say the same for you.
2. For every freedom, as it understood in Europe, holds true that "your freedom ends where freedom of other people begins". It means that your free speech is (and was) never allowed to attack other people personally (every kind of insults), professionally (e.g. reputational harm), as a member of specific group (any kind of sexism, racism, defamation, etc.)
Police and courts were not always strictly following this, due to various reasons, but it doesn't change the definition. And it is valid for online speech in exactly the same way as for any other kind of speech.
And actually, also in the US it was defined in the same way - it just wasn't written down, since it was a common understanding at that time - and manners, also covering the art of speaking to each other were actually much stricter back then compared to today.
If so do you have a reference?
fithisux•9mo ago