From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.
From age and ID restrictions on the Internet, to charging rappers with “terrorism,” the U.K. is demolishing the most basic civil liberties. If we let them, U.S. leaders may be close behind.
If the information is publicly available, then it’s not a violation. If it’s an invasion of privacy or harassment (according to legal standards), then that’s a violation that isn’t protected.
In general, even in the strongest realizations of free speech, expression that directly harms (rather than merely offends) isn’t protected.
This link kinda contradicts the thing you said about principles in my opinion. But then again, I should educate myself more on the matter
Rights/liberties necessarily limit each other where they conflict. A right to be unharmed, for example, may limit freedom of expression.
Beyond necessary limits, principles don’t need compromises. The linked harm principle explains a well-recognized, necessary limit.
In practice, it’s treated as narrow limits on incitement to imminent, lawless action; deprivation to peace & privacy; defamation; violation of intellectual property. Basically, anything that directly harms no matter if ignored.
In contrast, merely offensive expression can simply be ignored (or reciprocated with expression of any kind) without conflicting with rights, so it doesn’t need to be limited.
Thus, terroristic threats or targeted, persistent threats (that put a reasonable person in fear of their safety, thus depriving their rights) aren’t protected. Neither are false claims that deprive them their livelihood nor false warnings that cause panic & reckless endangerment.
Blanket statements that vilify a group of people, ill wishes, falsehoods that don’t incite immediate action, etc, don’t directly raise conflicts that necessitate limits.