I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada.
I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are at least at the US level. Some higher, like Canada, which doesnt have the "7 words you cant say on TV" restriction.
The "seven words" only applies to _broadcast_ mediums (television and radio) because of the limited shared medium thing. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning, but that's life.
More generally, protections against the government for personal speech are more complete in the US (both in principle and in practice) than any other country I'm aware of. A few examples might be the Westboro Baptist Church or the infamous Brandenburg v. Ohio case. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
(My view is necessarily US-centric though, so do feel free to point out any counterexamples I might not be aware of.)
Again, this is just my anecdotal view based on only 5 years in the US. We (Canada) have equal rights and so i always found it odd how often i was told about "Free speech" but couldnt see anything different in the US vs Canada.
we do have "hate laws" here, and you see others commenting and outlining how this is a "restriction" on free speech, but if you look at the law, you will see the US has something similiar as well:
The FCC has obscenity regulations for broadcast TV in the US under the idea that the broadcast spectrum is owned by the people. Cable television has no such restrictions. That rationale holds up a lot less now than it did in the early days of broadcast television, but it's still a far cry from Canadian hate speech laws in which the expression of certain points of view is deemed a crime.
> a far cry from Canadian hate speech laws in which the expression of certain points of view is deemed a crime.
Can you link to these laws? Because if you're talking about bill C-16, it's very clear that it isn't making it a crime to express certain beliefs, it's making it illegal to discriminate based on gender or gender identity. Just as the US does with regards to certain traits (such as color, religion, marital status, etc)
The "censored" TV shows are really just the networks not wanting to piss off their advertisers. There is little to no censorship in the sense that the government actually prevents you from publishing something - especially now that almost all media is internet or cable. The last area where government actually decided content was with broadcast television, since the government got to decide how to use a limited number of frequencies.
The FCC still levies fines for certain levels profanity and certain forms of nudity for over-the-air broadcasts for TV and FM/AM radio (I dont think satellite is bound due to being a paid service). Granted the standard for finable offenses has loosened over the years, and you can get away with more late night (presumably because the kids should be in bed).
I dont recall if the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Janet Jackson/Just Timberlake Super Bowl half time show resulted in a fine, but pretty much all live broadcasts are now delayed 15-30 seconds or so that so a producer (or whomever) can hit the censor button if something comes up.
Right, but over air broadcast hasn't been a primary mode of media consumption for decades at this point. The "censorship" on cable broadcasts you refer to are private companies keeping their content advertiser friendly not government restrictions.
Your response has little to do with the post. The FCC is a government agency, correct? so when it issues fines for "free speech"...
"Between 1990 and 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines totalling $2.5 million to radio licensees for airing material it deemed indecent from The Howard Stern Show, the highest amount of any American radio show. "
"On April 8, 2004, Clear Channel was fined $27,500 for each of the 18 violations for a combined $495,000 NAL for airing the broadcast on its six stations that carried Stern"
No, they issue licenses to broadcast on certain frequencies. And some of these licenses dictate what content can be shown and at white time of day (usually to the effect of restricting mature content to evening and nighttime airing). This is because of the nature of how bandwidth is publicly owned, and so the the public gets to decide how to allocate a limited resource. Fines exist to accommodate the fact that certain content can't be censored reliably (e.g. live interviews or shows where someone can go off script), while still creating a disincentive to violate the terms of the license.
Any of these publishers could sell tapes or dvds of these shows and face no fines whatsoever. Similarly, they could air them on the internet or on cable television that is not subject to public control of content. There's no restrictions on the content itself, there's restriction on the use of publicly owned bandwidth.
> I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted
I think it is properly rated. If you only have restrictions against vocabulary then you still have all the other liberty and you can advocate a repeal of the law that bugs you.
I suspect the censorship you were noticing was self-censorship in order to avoid adverse public reaction.
A legendary animated show spells out that you can only use the word "shit" metaphorically, e.g. "I feel like shit". I have to admit that most of the time I prefer people would go easy on my ears if they have to talk literally about defecation.
Misread your comment as “7 letter words you can’t say on TV”. I’ve spent way too long looking for offensive 7 letter words. It seems that for a word to be truely offensive it is usually very short.
> only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.
Which means the US right of free speech is somewhat weak compared to some other countries.
Especially it means that any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech.
I never understood why anyone from the US think they have a "very strong protection" of free speech.
> any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech
I don't follow what you're trying to say here? A private company can do as it pleases because an employee's speech could conflict with its business interests. In some cases, other federal, state, or local laws offer additional protections to the employee (ex California provides very strong protections for employee political speech).
The idea is that the government isn't allowed to restrict your speech, but it also can't force you to interact with someone you don't want to. If you say things that offend people, the consequences are your problem to deal with.
Facebook could decide that LGBTQ+ people are offensive and strongly restrict theire free speech even for non LGBTQ+ topics (sure there are other regulations to prevent this, but they have much less tooth).
That you have to handle consequences when you insult someone or you IDK openly call for the murder of all ... People that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into.
> that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into
I don't think you can avoid it though.
What if I personally choose not to associate with people I view as activists? Surely that's my right? What if I start a small business that's very up front about refusing clients who are activists? What if Facebook were to ban the accounts of known activists?
Who gets to set the criteria that determine if a topic or group is protected, what constitutes an insult, etc? Who do these rules apply to - only the largest of businesses or even to individuals? How do you balance such rules against the freedom to choose not to associate with someone? How do you avoid situations in which such rules would constitute a form of forced speech?
If you tell Facebook (using your example) that they have to allow speech on their own platform that they don't agree with, then you had better have a very clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous set of legal tests to apply because you're opening an absolutely enormous can of worms. Worse, Facebook is the _easy_ case because you can construct a reasonably convincing argument that the large public cloud providers have intentionally made themselves a sort of public commons (albeit a strange privately owned and operated one). As you look at progressively smaller businesses that serve fewer customers and have more competition, such an argument begins to break down.
I can see the reasoning that a forum (ex Reddit) or web host (ex Cloudflare) is a platform provider and should be required to be neutral, similar to the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. But I can also see legitimate concerns arising if (for example) YouTube was forced to host videos that they felt tarnished their brand or (for example) Reddit had been legally prevented from banning /r/watchpeopledie.
I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada.
I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are at least at the US level. Some higher, like Canada, which doesnt have the "7 words you cant say on TV" restriction.