Comment by msandford | Hacker News Reader

Comment by msandford | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The point of having laws is to protect the people who everyone thinks are the worst. Even the worst people should enjoy the protections of a free society, because any one of us could at some point somehow (accidentally!) become the worst. The police don't get the right suspect 100% of the time, so if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time you could now be a murder or rape suspect, or worse yet charged. Anyone could!

Similarly we should favor even "bad" people being allowed to speak because norms change, often very quickly. 15 years ago it was entirely within the mainstream politics to not publicly support gay marriage. Now if you're against it you're labelled a homophobe. What views do you have today that might be decidedly distasteful in another decade? Do you know? Do any of us?

Suggesting that because you're expressing what are now mainstream views means you're reasonable and thus safe is to -- at least to me -- completely misunderstand the ideas behind equality under the law or the real goal of freedom of expression.

The worst must also face accountability.

The counterpoint to this line of reasoning is the fact that Europe has had laws banning neo-Nazism and such speech for like half a century, and no slippery slopes have thus far been encountered.

This is incorrect. Most of Europe has free speech:

"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."

Are you claiming there are no laws banning holocaust denial in Europe? If you're not, then there's nothing incorrect about the statement you were countering.

Your quote is lacking the second part of the Art.10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which describes how free speech is not "unlimited":

"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 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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com