←back to thread

420 points rvz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
throwadobe ◴[] No.41413441[source]
[flagged]
replies(3): >>41413573 #>>41414511 #>>41417552 #
ikmckenz ◴[] No.41414511[source]
Freedom of speech is a general conception of human rights, not any one particular law. Governments can choose to respect (or not!) those rights, but the idea applies to everyone.
replies(3): >>41414724 #>>41416794 #>>41418346 #
bad_user ◴[] No.41414724[source]
When it comes to human rights, unfortunately, the notion got perverted by USSR and its allies.

The difference between the US and the rest of the world is that the US has the First Amendment, which it upholds. So, for example, in the US "hate speech" is not banned, and while inciting violence is banned, it must be literal incitement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...

This is important, because freedom of speech was supposedly allowed behind the Iron Curtain as well, as long as it wasn't "going against the socialist order" or "promoting fascism" (with capitalism or social democracy being just light fascism). Various countries found ways to pay lip service to human rights, while being authoritarian.

replies(3): >>41415016 #>>41415278 #>>41415451 #
1. profeatur ◴[] No.41415016[source]
The divide goes back even further than the USSR.

The enlightenment era gave us two separate definitions of freedom. At its foundation, the US govt is granted whatever rights it has to constrain freedom by wholly autonomous and free individuals, and in the other (French, continental) conception freedom is both defined and granted by the state. Authoritarianism is baked into the definition.

It will take future historians living in more intellectually permissive times to give a full account as to why the first concept of freedom only ever took root in the US and why the majority of countries have adopted the second.