#FREE SPEEK FREE#

Although the First Amendment does not protect certain narrow categories of speech, such as true threats and imminent incitement of lawless action, it does not have a general “hate speech” exception. protections for political speech are vastly more expansive than those of Europe. After all, no politician likes to be mocked and criticized in public.

The result is likely to reduce the social media accounts of politicians and public officials to one-sided public relations platforms where they can spread their messages with little opportunity for public criticism by the people they’re supposed to represent. A politician might, for instance, discriminate systematically against his or her most vociferous online critics by defining their comments as “hate speech” or other forms of illegal content.

#FREE SPEEK FREE#

In 2018, the ECHR even found that a Russian journalist had exceeded the limits of free speech and “stir up a deep-seated and irrational hatred” towards the Russian army by comparing its soldiers to “maniacs” and “murderers.” This decision hasn’t aged well given the horrors inflicted by Russian troops in Ukraine.Įven worse, the ECHR’s decision might actually legitimize the selective and viewpoint-based repression of dissent and political criticism.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the ECHR has never defined “hate speech,” which may include such vague and inherently subjective categories as “insulting” and “hurtful” comments. Eric Adams,’ for example, has 362,000 Facebook followers, and his posts often attract hundreds of comments, which no single person - even with staff - could reasonably be expected to proactively review for compliance with existing laws, while also serving in office. This is especially true for the most prominent politicians. If politicians and public officials risk criminal liability for comments made by third party users, they will be strongly incentivized to simply disable comments. One of social media’s most empowering aspects is that it gives ordinary citizens and voters the ability to tell their “betters” what they think of them without pleasantries. The ECHR’s decision is deeply antithetical to the egalitarian ideals of online free speech, and it’s likely to skew the public sphere in favor of the powerful and platformed to the disadvantage of the voiceless and marginalized. In its decision, the ECHR stressed that due to a politician’s “particular status and position in society,” he or she is more likely to “influence voters, or even to incite them, directly or indirectly, to adopt positions and conduct that may prove unlawful” and therefore politicians must be “all the more vigilant” in policing content.

Some users commented on the posting, accusing the rival political party of being “allies of the muslims” and describing the city of Nimes as being infested by “Drug trafficking run by the muslims” and where “stones get thrown at cars belonging to ‘white people.’”Įven though one of the comments was quickly deleted by the user and the politician warned his Facebook followers to “be careful with the content of comments,” he was convicted for incitement to religious hatred and fined 3,000 euros. France, the mayor of a French village, local councilor, and parliamentary candidate for the right-wing Rassemblement National Party used his Facebook account to mock a rival political party’s failing website.

Free speek