In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom.
Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive).
However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .
>In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom.
But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone.
Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.
> defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others
Who decides if someone is harmed? Did I really harm someone if I called them a homophobic slur? Can I say that someone harmed me if the mispronounce my name?
> The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained.
There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.
rtsil|1 year ago
Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive).
However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .
Aerroon|1 year ago
But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone.
Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.
FollowingTheDao|1 year ago
Who decides if someone is harmed? Did I really harm someone if I called them a homophobic slur? Can I say that someone harmed me if the mispronounce my name?
braiamp|1 year ago
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85...
It normally boils down to a <we allow this, except when this>, vs <we allow everything without restrictions>.
There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
lxgr|1 year ago
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...
blackeyeblitzar|1 year ago
carlosjobim|1 year ago
fhdsgbbcaA|1 year ago
ImJamal|1 year ago