This conversation is closed.
Why is freedom of speech so vastly different in the USA compared to the rest of the world? What does that mean in today's global culture?
Well, i may be exaggerating when i say "so vastly different", but it is my inalienable right to lie and exaggerate if that helps to get my point across.
Or is it?
Is there a limit to the amount of insults or lies i can utter in order to get a point across? or worse off, not even to get a point across, but simply to provoke a reaction on certain audience?
One of the main differences between the way freedom of speech is understood in the USA and elsewhere, is the concept of "hate speech".
Seems to me that in the USA, all the responsibility is passed to the listener, to remain rational in the face of lies and provocations, and never indulge in the most minimal reaction (other than use hate speech back).
Being a parent, I can say with certainty that not everybody can control their irrational impulses equally. Teenagers, in particular, are prone to act first and think later. And this has been known and exploited for centuries.
Can someone honestly claim innocence when making a speech that is capable of provoking this kind of out of control reaction in someone? Isn't that one of the things that could get you accused of treason, for example, when your speech incites people to rebel against your own government?
Now, to the second part of my question. Jurisdiction. If i say something that may be protected by free-speech in the USA, but which may not be protected as such in a different country (due to their differing definition of "hate speech", for example), under whose jurisdiction does this speech fall? Can someone honestly claim that they innocently released a comment on the internet for "domestic consumption only", and that they are not responsible of its international repercussions?