| ▲ | 0xy 7 hours ago |
| Thousands of people in the UK have been arrested for social media posts, some for speech recognized as protected by international organizations. Germany is currently actively campaigning to force everyone to use their real names on all social media and force ID checks to do so, a clear chilling effect for free speech. Macron has been railing against free speech specifically in recent months, calling it "bullshit". Europe is against free speech, any argument to the contrary must contend with the above examples of them trampling on rights. |
|
| ▲ | codethief 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Germany is currently actively campaigning to force everyone to use their real names on all social media and force ID checks to do so, a clear chilling effect for free speech. Source? (Other than one derailed politician, which unfortunately we get to call our chancellor, having a moment? He's still not "Germany", though, not even "the German government".) > Macron has been railing against free speech specifically in recent months, calling it "bullshit". I think you're misrepresenting what he said: https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuelmacron-calls-social-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-18/macron-bl... |
| |
| ▲ | 0xy 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Huh? You're saying the German Chancellor does not represent the German government? [1] Large swathes of the CDU support it as well. Macron was responding to criticism of the Digital Services Act, which contains censorship provisions for 'hate speech', which is repeatedly and routinely used by European nations to crack down on protected political speech. For example, it has been used as an excuse to censor political views leaning anti-immigration. The UK in particular has used Ofcom as a weapon to target American companies that enable free speech communications, notably 4chan. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/germanys-merz-calls-real... | | |
| ▲ | codethief 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Huh? You're saying the German Chancellor does not represent the German government? I'm saying, there is a huge difference between a random utterance of the chancellor, which by next week he'll likely already have forgotten about, and "Germany actively campaigning" e.g. at the EU or federal level, both of which would require both ruling parties to get behind the chancellor's demands, which – based on how similar discourses have turned out in the past – is completely unlikely. I'm not defending Merz's position, not by a long shot. I'm just saying that, based on previous experience, we're still quite far away from the "actively campaigning" stage and very, very, very far away from Merz's ideas being turned into law. I'm concerned about many things but this is not one of them. Civil rights organizations are already rallying and telling him how stupid he is¹ for suggesting that real name enforcement would be a good idea. :-) It's the usual political discourse. ¹) See how I am exercising my right to free speech and am not at all concerned about being charged for "insulting a politician"? | |
| ▲ | codethief 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > the Digital Services Act […] The UK in particular You do realize that the UK is not part of the EU? So I'm not sure how UK's supposed "weaponization" of Ofcom has anything to do with Macron's statement. > which is repeatedly and routinely used by European nations to crack down on protected political speech. I'm really looking forward to your sources here. The DSA does not contain any provisions that change anything about the legality of speech. It's mostly meant to harmonize procedural aspects across the member states. https://www.csis.org/blogs/europe-corner/does-eus-digital-se... https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/quick-take/a-clear-eyed-look-at-th... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | seattle_spring 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > some for speech recognized as protected by international organizations. Can you share some concrete examples from reputable sources that show these? Every examples I've seen have been clear-cut calls for violence, or unambiguous harassment. |
| |
|
| ▲ | api 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ten seconds of searching: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1qv0vpi/... The propaganda take I keep seeing is that you can get arrested for misgendering people or something, but these are at least close to incitement to violence. Some clearly cross that line. To be clear I’m closer to the American view. I think the bar should be very, very high for speech to be criminally actionable. Just pointing out that it doesn’t seem as nuts as some make it sound. |
| |
| ▲ | 0xy 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You didn't search very hard. https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-net/... "Internet freedom declined in the United Kingdom during the coverage period due to a reported increase in criminal charges for online speech" "A separate report from The Telegraph found that 292 people had been charged for spreading false information and “threatening communications” under the Online Safety Act between when it came into effect in 2023 and February 2025. Some civil liberties groups expressed concern that the laws were being applied broadly and in some cases punished speech protected by international human rights standards (C3)." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/15/hundreds-charged... "Legal experts have also questioned the new rules. David Hardstaff, a serious crime expert at the law firm BCL Solicitors, said the fake news offence was “problematic both for its potential to stifle free speech if misused, but equally for its lack of clarity and consistency”." |
|
