How The US Quietly Lost The 1st Amendment

[Guest]

While many would argue that Americans' First Amendment rights have long since dwindled from the liberties initially granted in The Bill of Rights, a decision by the European Union's highest court could well mark the final nail in the coffin of free speech.

FULL ARTICLE - https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-us-quietly-lost-1st-amendment

As Politico reports, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that Facebook can be ordered to track down and remove content globally if it was found to be illegal in any EU country. In its ruling, CJEU said that EU law allowed local judges to order the world's largest social network to remove illegal content, as well as delete material that conveyed a similar message under certain circumstances. The decision is not just a slap in the face of worldwide citizens' freedom of expression, but a big defeat for Facebook as it will force them to be more responsible for what is appearing on the internet (and thus what is seen by those who make the rules as not appropriate for the genpop).

“This judgement raises critical questions around freedom of expression and the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech,” Toby Partlett, a Facebook spokesman, said in a statement. “We hope the courts take a proportionate and measured approach to avoid having a chilling effect on freedom of expression."

Of course, it won't as EU bureaucrats have hardly shown the ability to undertake measured responses when it comes to cracking down on non-sanctioned thoughts, words, and memes. Facebook officials went to exclaim that: ...the ruling "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." As Politico details, the ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in 2016 by Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, an Austrian lawmaker, who had requested that Facebook delete defamatory posts made about her by an anonymous user.

When an Austrian court sided with her, the company initially only removed the content from being viewed in Austria, but subsequent appeals had focused on whether such takedowns should apply globally, and if Facebook should be required to remove similar content once it has been made aware of the defamatory material. Following the ruling by Europe’s highest court, her case will now be referred back to Austrian judges, who will make the final ruling about how to apply Thursday’s decision. As one would expect, digital rights campaigners were incensed by the breadth of the decision:

“The court's decision opens the door for serious restrictions on freedom of expression due to the takedown of legitimate speech. Extending removal to the vague concept of “equivalent” content is harmful because the context as well as motivation of users re-sharing content may significantly differ with each re-upload,” said Eliška Pírková, Europe policy analyst at Access Now, a campaigning group. Those who believe tyranny cannot come to the United States should take a look around because it’s already here and as the EU court's decision shows, it is not just Washington that Americans should fear.

 

NB - this is an article, by a journalist. Hence the link, to an article, by a journalist.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Is posting on Facebook a form of "speech?"  When that right was drafted I doubt anyone predicted that misinformation could "go viral."

Defamation, libel, and slander have been against the law for a while.

 

[Guest]

Fair point but the main bit it's trying to get across is this I guess ... 

the ruling "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."

But yeah depends on definition of speech 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Fair point but the main bit it's trying to get across is this I guess ... 

the ruling "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."

But yeah depends on definition of speech 

I see much of this as just regulating a company that is operating in their country.  Protection of national identity, prevention of excessive propaganda, etc. 

In Canada we have rules preventing the US from totally swamping our media. Is that preventing US free speech? No, it's keeping some of that garbage out of our home and native land.

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

Global removal is a bit too much, just censor it out of certain nations if they desire.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Free speech is alive and well globally...as long as you are NOT a white, heterosexual, male who thinks climate change is bogus.

[Guest]

Or in China ... 

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

as long as you are NOT a white, heterosexual, male who thinks climate change is bogus.

LOL amazing stuff

Edited October 13, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The truth hurts....

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

17 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Defamation, libel, and slander have been against the law for a while.

Name the last time any of those have been successfully argued in a court of law. A law, impossible to enforce is no law

[Danlxyz + 63]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Name the last time any of those have been  successfully argued in a court of law. A law, impossible to enforce is no law

Here are 3 cases from Florida here the plaintiff won.  Apparently most cases are settled out of court.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrTLYjolaNdIbYAQMNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydTVkajVpBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY4MzNfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1571030633/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fsouthfloridainjuryaccidentblog.com%2f2016%2f04%2f14%2f3-examples-of-florida-defamation-cases-where-plaintiffs-were-victorious%2f/RK=2/RS=z2C_FOoEqGmdPuDm9C5AV_OVGtM-

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Mainstream media gets away with slander and libel on a daily basis simply by claiming freedom of the press and ‘protecting the source’.

[Boat + 1,324]

Abortion is murder, .............Free speech or sue that religious fanatic who wants to tell me what to do with my body.

So each country can sue Google for content when countries can’t agree what is allowed. How can that be fair. Logic should dictait both or multiple sides of any issue should be open to debate. But so many of you messed up humans can’t stand being wrong and confronted. Lol So Trump like, XI like, and sounds like EU like would stop debate because the noise offends them. Of all things, mercy, I’ll say, wow, can it be so?

[frankfurter + 562]

On 10/13/2019 at 9:47 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Free speech is alive and well globally...as long as you are NOT a white, heterosexual, male who thinks climate change is bogus.

Do I need spectacles?  Am I reading a comment from you about free speech that does not demonise China?  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

18 hours ago, Danlxyz said:

Here are 3 cases from Florida here the plaintiff won.  Apparently most cases are settled out of court.

Notably none of those cases involved the media, who are the prime offenders on a daily basis as @Douglas Buckland points out above. Also each case involved something else and the defamation was icing on the cake as it were. 

The last time a media outlet actually lost a defamation case that I'm aware of was when Carol Burnett sued and won, but as I recall the award was merely enough to reimburse her legal expenses, about $1.6 million. That was back in 1981 when she won after a lengthy trial. 

Here is a prime example of the press getting away with Defamation. While the judge may have been right that the press isn't responsible for repeating a lie told to them, the dozen or so editorials lambasting those kids were, in my opinion, not protected speech. But as I've said, the MSM gets away with murder

[Danlxyz + 63]

On 10/13/2019 at 9:50 AM, Ward Smith said:

Name the last time any of those have been successfully argued in a court of law.

If you only want to include media defamation,you are right. That 1st Amendment right of freedom of the press does interfere with freedom of speech.  But I did find one. The Rolling Stone in the UVA rape case. Sorry I cant get the link to copy right now.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 minutes ago, Danlxyz said:

If you only want to include media defamation,you are right. That 1st Amendment right of freedom of the press does interfere with freedom of speech.  But I did find one. The Rolling Stone in the UVA rape case. Sorry I cant get the link to copy right now.

Good catch. I don't consider Rolling Stones to be MSM but they definitely got busted hard. 

Here's one link

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Notably none of those cases involved the media, who are the prime offenders on a daily basis

I think they mostly just do cease and desist threats with the media and they generally comply.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

21 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I think they mostly just do cease and desist threats with the media and they generally comply.

The NYT is notorious for printing the lie on page one with 40 point headline font and the retraction on page 60 in 8 point font 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 10/12/2019 at 5:02 PM, Enthalpic said:

Is posting on Facebook a form of "speech?"  When that right was drafted I doubt anyone predicted that misinformation could "go viral."

Defamation, libel, and slander have been against the law for a while.

 

And is burning a flag free speech? It is not, what it is is freedom of expression. The SC has declared that freedom of expression is the same as free speech. So you can wear what you want, burn flags to heat your home if you like, etc., but there are limits to that when it comes to libel and slander.  

[SERWIN + 749]

On 10/14/2019 at 7:40 AM, frankfurter said:

Do I need spectacles?  Am I reading a comment from you about free speech that does not demonise China?  

I forgot to say phuk china. Thank you for reminding me Frank..... They can kiss my hairy white American azz

[Guest]

William Barr Wants To Kill Privacy And Security... "For The Children"

by Tyler Durden

Wed, 10/16/2019 - 11:55   Authored by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

U.S. Attorney General William Barr, along with co-conspirators in the UK and Australia, recently wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg requesting he not move forward with a plan to implement end-to-end encryption across Facebook’s messaging services. A draft of the letter was published earlier this month by Buzzfeed, and it’s worth examining in some detail.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/william-barr-wants-kill-privacy-and-security-children

Edited October 16, 2019 by Guest