U.S. Free Speech vs. EU Free Speech

Thanks, Max!=============A. My CasePro agrees with my weighing mechanism for the debate. He agrees that it's harder, in the USM, to trade-off against free speech for the sake of other rights. This is where the disagreement lies between Pro and I: the EUM protects all rights more effectively because it does not heavily privilege any one right over the others, unlike Pro. Pro talks about a hierarchy of rights, where free speech is near the top, but my whole case argues that the EUM isn't hierarchical, it is a nexus of rights that recognizes the equal importance of all rights in crafting a healthy society. Pro never contests that all rights matter, and has done nothing to show why the USM protects all rights best or why free speech is superordinate to other rights and goods. Any analysis from Pro on these points would be new in his last speech.Pro agrees with my assessment regarding the legal methodologies of both approaches, and he drops some of the impacts I made from my assessment. Extend these impacts: (1) the EUM reinforces the importance of balancing rights and impacts the thinking behind decisions, adjusting them toward balancing, and (2) the EUM has less unnecessary red tape. Any dropped points cannot be responded too later by Pro, because they would be new arguments in his final speech.Pro drops my data re: freedom in Europe. Pro also drops my values arguments; both points will be impacted later in this speech.B. Pro's CaseB1. OverviewPro's R1 argument lacked substance and was essentially a precis of his R2 argumentation. His R2 case pretty much comes down to "restricting hate speech is bad, and the EUM restricts hate speech." This is hardly an "on balance" assessment of the two systems. The resolution requires Pro to affirm the topic "on balance;" inasmuch as he talks about only one small slice of free speech-related jurisprudence, he cannot affirm the topic. Pro cannot bring up fresh examples in his final speech as these would be new arguments. Pro's main source catalogs instances of what it views as censorship; any data coming from it is going to be cherry-picked and not necessarily reflective of the EUM on balance. Pro also tries to use his hate speech claims to paint Europe as un-free or fascistic; yet my data from last round shows that freedom in Europe is, in many ways, better than in the US. So, what exactly is the negative impact of these hate speech restrictions on freedom writ large? Pro offers no meaningful analysis.B2. Hate SpeechPro provides examples of hate speech laws in Europe. His first example is Poland's Article 13. I cannot find any evidence that this statute was upheld by the ECtHR. While all laws must comply with the ECvHR, as Pro notes, this does not mean that they actually do; Federal laws must comply with the Constitution, but they do not always. Only ECtHR or SCOTUS rulings can clarify whether a law actually passes legal muster. In this sense, just excerpting a law that is on the books in a European country does not tell us whether this law is actually legal.Of Pro's enumerated examples, his first regards a case that never went the the ECtHR, and which was eventually dismissed [1]. His second example was about Bob Dylan, who had those charges against him dropped. [2] Pro's third example deals with a case of homophobes distributing literature at a school, and, upon examination of the ruling, it seems clear that the court's reasoning hinged more on the "school" issue than on the speech itself. For instance: "the distribution of the leaflets took place at a school which none of the applicants attended and to which they did not have free access." [3] Pro's final example concerns 1 issue that effects a very limited group of people and so has limited impact on the debate. We should also keep in mind that in countries with recent and deep-seated ethnic conflicts, e.g. Bosnia, hate speech laws may be essential for keeping the peace; hate speech in such countries could spark real violence. I also want to set straight the record with some examples of my own on the EUM's outlook on speech designed to shock, offend, or disturb. In "Gunduz v. Turkey," a man was convicted of inciting religious hatred with his extremist views. The ECtHR found that his remarks were not inciting violence, overruling the lower court. [4] In "Lehideux and Isorni v. France," authors were convicted of defending the war crimes of Marshall Petain, and were cleared by the ECtHR in large part because of the historical value of their explorations of Petain's legacy. [5] In "Dink v. Turkey," Dink had been convicted of "denigrating Turkishness" for expressing pro-Armenian views. The ECtHR vacated that conviction because "his resentment toward attitudes he regarded as a denial of the 1915 events, he was not but expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest in a democratic society." [6] This ruling was "in line with...established case-law." [6] In "Jersild v Denmark," a journalist was convicted of inciting racial hatred by airing an interview with racists; the ECtHR again cleared the journalist on the basis that impartial interviews for informational purposes are not inciting racial hatred. [7] Clearly, protections are in place for offensive speech, particularly for historical or journalistic purposes, or for speech that does not incite violence. Prefer my examples to Pro's since they pertain to actual ECtHR cases.The EUM isn't overly restrictive of speech as "D. Levels of Freedom" in my case shows. That Europe outperforms the US in personal freedom may be explained by its unique and holistic approach to balancing rights; it treats all rights as valuable.C. My ExamplesThe EUM better accommodates privacy rights in a variety of ways. For instance, in terms of data privacy, the EUM only allows data collection/interference when it complies with the law, pursues a legitimate goal, and is necessary in a democratic society. Data controllers are required to disclose certain information to the data subject about how their data is being processed, and data subjects have clear rights. [8] US data protection laws are far weaker and more scattered. [9] Insofar as access to information, and its distribution, is a free speech issue, this is topical. Consider also: "In recent history, several European nations have suffered through totalitarian governments that tracked citizens" movements and compiled dossiers against them. As a result...[European] laws are stronger than in the U.S." [10]Reporting restrictions, restrictions on exposing the accused, are also useful. Withholding their identity protects the presumption of innocence for the accused. When the media latches on to a case, the populace often hears so much commentary and opinion that it poisons the potential jury pool (or judges) or risks doing so during the trial. It also can destroy reputations--even if someone is exonerated, they have had themselves mentioned negatively on media outlets, and that is all many may remember of them. So, not only is this an issue of privacy, but it is an issue of due process of law. The EUM has affirmed the importance of reporting restrictions, while the USM has not really done so as a whole. [11, 12]The EUM also has made room for a right-to-be-forgotten (RTBF) which protects a variety of interests. RTBF gives people "the right--under certain conditions--to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing." [13] Data permanence, the phenomenon that online material is permanently available, stunts a person's ability to grow overtime. Rather than being judged on one's present maturity and credentials, one youthful indiscretion (e.g. a pot conviction) could limit a person's job prospects for the rest of their life. Data permanence is also problematic in that it leads to self-censorship; rather than creating an atmosphere where people can be frank or express themselves, fear of things you say online haunting you for the rest of your life often dulls speech. RTBF helps fix this. RTBF can also address issues like revenge porn, i.e. posting explicit pictures or video of your ex on the web in order to get revenge. "While pictures of women branded as sluts, victims, home-wreckers (etc) stay accessible on the internet, job opportunities, new relationships, college entry and basic self-esteem are wrecked. On many US based sites, images stay up till blackmail is paid...because websites hosted in the US benefit from a law which gives them complete immunity from prosecution or action relating to content posted by users, smaller, less reputable sites...can refuse to take down revenge porn without incurring legal liability and do so as a lucrative business model." [14] Deleting the links from search engines, as RTBF would do, solves for these problems and protects victims from this content. Unfortunately, RTBF would not survive in the USM. [15]Privacy is needed for personal dignity, as a check on government abuse, and for effective free speech (as I noted in "E. Values" of my case). Given the last point, the EUM actually strengthens free speech through protecting privacy.D. ConclusionPro hasn't offered sufficient analysis to prove his case. I have shown the EUM best builds the knife to shuck the metaphorical oyster; i.e. I best protect the full panoply of rights and goods. Thus, I negate.E. Sources1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7- http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://tinyurl.com...10 - http://tinyurl.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...14 - http://tinyurl.com...15 - http://tinyurl.com...