by pessimizer | 2025-12-29 17:37:10+00:00
> E.g. Freedom of speech in the US, is rather narrow. It merely states you may "speak, write, and print with freedom" but not that you may do so anywhere, on any platform, on private property. It doesn't state that such speech, writings or printings must reach everyone.

> The UNHCR article 19 goes further, though. But it doesn't automatically apply to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It includes `... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers`.

I have no idea why you think that Article 19 goes farther. It does not say that you may speak anywhere, on any platform, or on private property, and it doesn't say that that speech must reach everyone, which is a bizarre requirement anyway. It isn't a demand that all media carry all speech, and hasn't been treated that way by any of its signatories.

Worse, the text doesn't say that all information and ideas can be expressed, and it doesn't put any restrictions on governments in restraining the types of information and ideas that can be expressed.

The only thing it absolutely guarantees is the freedom to silently hold an opinion, a thing which it never had any ability to restrict.

The 1st Amendment is an actual right of free speech against the government. I'm not sure why you think that an actual, binding restriction on the government is weak compared to nothing. It's the only thing that keeps the US from passing the laws on speech and expression (that many people in the US would desire) that Europe passes regularly.

The US has to do stuff like connecting speech to other crimes as an aggravating factor, applying speech restrictions to places where the rights of citizens don't apply and the government is granted a lot of latitude, or applying speech restrictions to government contracting guidelines. And any of these things are liable to be struck down at any moment as unconstitutional by an adverse court decision.

But back to the Declaration, it's important to remember, of course, it has absolutely no legal force. That's reserved for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which basically copies Article 19 but adds:

The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Effectively meaning that speech must be free unless it is restricted.

Then, just for kicks, Article 20 in the Covenant is simply two more mandatory restrictions on speech:

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

These are two categories of speech unambiguously* protected in the US. Also two categories of speech happily engaged in by the governments of signatories, and used against the citizens of signatories who contradict government messages of war and bigotry. This is done because the words "propaganda" and "hatred" are undefined, unlike simple words like "government" and "speech."

-----

* Other than what has been called incitement to "imminent violence" which means that you're literally coordinating a violent act between a group of people which will happen right now.