Comment by logicallee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicallee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think I will memorize and remember your comment to show that America is special and totally unique in the world. I presume you're a European, and you call it nothing special that the State forced the removal of a private form of expression.

In America every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have a first-amendment right to say whatever they want. The Supreme Court, which is totally separate from the executive and legislative branches, and has members appointed for life (who often don't end up beholden to the people who appointed them) interpret the Constitution with total independence.

While you call Spain's action "nothing to see", America is a shining beacon of free speech whose transcendent importance has not even made it to the average educated person (you) in Europe, let alone the whole of its population.

Anyone who objects to American exceptionalism would do well to reflect on the parent comment's nonchalance.

>Just a bit of feedback. This weekend there is a referendum in Cataluña, a province of Spain, about their independentism. This is not supported by the central government and it is consider illegal, and that is the reason the app was removed from the PlayStore, the court ordered it.

>Nothing so see here unless you want to talk about politics.

>EDIT: as you want to talk about politics, them you should have a bit of background. I think this is a good video (spanish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbeyN2fuz_4

In Spain every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have the right to say whatever they want.

If you honestly thought the US was unique about that, you need to travel or read more.

What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.

AFAIK, Spain doesn't have any law that guarantees the citizens are free to speak there mind without fear of censorship from the government. It does however have laws restricting speech (glorification of crimes).

The US on the other hand, included it in the first amendment of its constitution.

Much of the rest of the world does not have the guarantees on free speech that the US does (it is hard to get much freer). Germany for example restricts criticism of the state, denial of the holocaust, etc.

The US is fairly unique in preserving the freedom of speech to the degree that it does. There are others such as Poland or Norway that also make strong guarantees, but Spain is not among them.

> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.

You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence. Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.

> You might have missed the non-stop concentrations of people claiming for independence.

Are you saying that the Spanish have the right to free speech because they claim independence? Any person can do whatever is within their power (such as speak their mind or kill somebody); the right to free speech is the assurance that the Government won't interfere (as they should with murder).

> Or if you think the app being banned from the Play Store is by a private individual developed using their own funds, you should know it's not the case.

I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate with this.

I'm just speculating with what made you think this:

> What is happening currently shows that the right to free speech is not respected by the Spanish government.

because you didn't explain it.

The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.

> The Spanish have the assurance, from our Constitution, that the Government won't interfere with concentrations claiming independence, or whatever else. Thus, by your own definition (and mine) we have the right to free speech.

Which section(s) are you referring to? I couldn't find anything about interfering in concentrations claiming independence or free speech? I did find Section 71 stating that members of Congress have free speech in order to do their functions, but that implies normal people do not.

Title I, chapter 2, section 20 (page 16 in this pdf), in English: http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/... )

Hi, I'm the poster that originally objected to the lack of first-amendment protection in Spain, and the nonchalance of the other poster with regard to this fact. I just read your link and I like it. I'd like to quote it so it's part of our thread here:

>1. The following rights are recognised and protected:

> a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction.

> b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation.

> c) the right to academic freedom.

> d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever.

I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized.

The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about?

This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article):

>The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.

>It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.

It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever."

Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is.

So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.

> the force that the first amendment does in the United States

Ah, give me a break, you guys had a court order prohibiting the dissemination of a number. A number.

Which was turned by higher instances IIRC?

The problem here is that a court has determined that the referendum is illegal. So helping to do an illegal act is not allowed, and preventing it is one of the exceptions of free speech. I think advertising for drug dealers in the USA also wouldn't be covered by free speech.

The other problem is using public funds for something illegal. The use of public money is very restricted in Spain. There is a body of civil servants (interventores) whose only job is approving and supervising every euro spent by any gobernment entity. If there is public spending involved in the development or promotion of this app this is a big problem.

What do free speech have to do with a local government breaking laws? If the Catalan government proclaims next week the “independence” of their new republic (but maintaining the Spanish passports, of course), do you think the reaction from the Spanish government will also be an attack on their right to free speech?

> What do free speech have to do with a local government breaking laws?

Censorship is what it has to do with. The Spanish Government does not want the Catalan government to be able to organize people and thus has tried to remove the people's right to communicate with each other about it.

I was directly addressing the parent comment. It also addressed free speech.

> do you think the reaction from the Spanish government will also be an attack on their right to free speech?

It may be; that entirely depends on what the reaction is.

I fail to see “people communicating with each other” in this case, I’m sorry.

> The Spanish Government does not want the Catalan government to be able to organize people and thus has tried to remove the people's right to communicate with each other about it.

This has very little relation to the actual situation:

- The Catalan government, and anybody really, can organize people and the Central Government can't do anything about it.

- The Central Government, further, has nothing to do with the app that was banned from the Play Store. That's an order from a court in Catalonia.

- The banned app doesn't allow people to communicate with each other.

> In Spain every single adult of average or slightly below average intelligence knows they have the right to say whatever they want.

As smug as you are, you're wrong -- Spain doesn't have freedom of speech as Americans understand that term.

For example, from Wikipedia: "justifying the Holocaust or any other genocide is an offence punishable by imprisonment in accordance with the constitution."

Your courts on the other hand prohibited people from publishing a number. A number.

Whoa. Don’t characterise the whole of Europe based on the comments of one single imperalist-minded European.

Out of curiosity, why am I a imperialist-minded European? What makes you think so?

It's just that their comment was very surprising to me. Spain is obviously completely modern in every way and a full-size EU participant: therefore, their comment (and followup, "the law is the law") reveals that this structural protection for the idea of free speech, that there is something higher than the law, isn't baked into the structure of modern European democracies via a separated judicial branch or analogous institute of checks and balances. Instead, European democracies are apparently governed by law.

If I'm mistaken, then which European country did you have in mind, which couldn't decide to do the same thing, because their respective institutions would strike down the law as unconstitutional (even if it had majority support)?

1) It is a binding referendum (this is what some catalan politics say). It is not about what they think, but about what are they going to do. The binding part is what makes this completely illegal.

2) Some people don't take is seriously because it is against the law (there is a law which they can use to do a referendum like this but it needs support from central government and an open dialog that is not happening)

3) Catalans agree with the law. The Catalan court was who said this referendum was illegal.

In any democracy you must govern by the law. The people chose the government and they make the laws. What is wrong with this? If you want a different government you vote something different, but Catalans are not doing this either. This process is not supported by some independist.

>In any democracy you must govern by the law. The people chose the government and they make the laws. What is wrong with this?

you raise a good question and the answer is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority . That's why in America even if the majority support a law limiting speech, the supreme court will still strike down such a law - the State can't cause the removal of things like this app in America, lawfully; even if it has people's support.

what is interesting is that I wouldn't have to explain this to someone else in America - it's part of what everyone already knows.

That is why you have a constitution. This referendum is against it and that is why is against the law. You cannot claim your city as independent of the country doing a referendum among your friends. This is what is happening now in Spain (more or less)

So, I actually didn't mention anything about the referendum at all.

I was just using your example to point out that your attitude about the removal of an app means that "first-amendment" (free speech) issues aren't big in Europe. It has nothing to do with what the app (or referendum) says or doesn't say. It could be about anything. I was pointing out that you don't consider the forced removal of the app by the state to itself be a huge issue. It shows how strongly people feel about "free speech" in Europe: not at all. It's not part of the discussion or a relevant matter for you, as long as it's done lawfully.

Because how this is being done is a completely mistake. They don't respect each other and do things against the law they supported before. But don't compare it with free speech, this is not what is happening now. I want an open dialog, not this bullshit. If you do something illegal you face the consequences, as this is completely illegal they faced them. Otherwise is that they open a public debate and discuss, talk with the people, negotiate the terms, etc. They could do things right like in Ireland, but they are not doing it. And the central government instead of open a dialog is closed completely to any type of dialog. Someone tries to open a dialog and they point at them and blame them. And they got more votes because of their attitude. So fight is served because politics don't want to talk and are making the people hate the other people.

To sum up, the problem is how are they doing the things and that most population support both of them (each one their party) increasing the anger and the hate.

> the State can't cause the removal of things like this app in America, lawfully; even if it has people's support.

It can however cause the removal of apps that are ruled illegal by a court; the only difference is the kind of app that would be illegal. The US already has all kinds of restrictions on free speech, or somewhat speech-like actions like distributing an app. That is backed by the US constitution, just as this instance was (apparently) backed by the Spanish constitution.

What is interesting to me is a) that you think everyone in the US is intimately familiar with the implications of the first amendment and concepts like the tyranny of the majority. That doesn't seem to be the case, given the striking number of people who think they can say whatever they want without any legal repercussions. And b) that you believe your argument to be so persuasive that someone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have been aware of it.

> If I'm mistaken, then which European country did you have in mind, which couldn't decide to do the same thing, because their respective institutions would strike down the law as unconstitutional (even if it had majority support)?

You think the government of California can pass a law of secession and that law wouldn't be stroke down?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com