I've commented this elsewhere, but rights in the US are generally much more absolute than here in Europe.
For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone.
Similarly rights to privacy are often ignored whenever a justification can be made that it's appropriate to do so.
I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but here in the UK you don't even have a right to remain silent because the government added a loophole so that if you're arrested in a UK airport they can arbitrarily force you to answer their questions and provide passwords for any private devices. For this reason you often here reports of people being randomly arrested in UK airports, and the government does this deliberately so they can violate your rights.
> For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone.
So you actually don't have freedom of expression?
No offendings are not an expression. What do you express with them, poor anger management?
Your right to something ends were a right of someone else is violated. That's the case here.
> Your right to something ends were a right of someone else is violated. That's the case here.
Ah yes, that memorable trifecta: Life, Liberty, and the Right to Never Hear Mean Words.
Oral violence also has consequences. From invoking or reinforcing mental diseases over fear and isolation to blackmail and being socially judged on while being innocent. Do you accept random beatings when people feel like it on the street?
Oral violence is an oxymoron. It's dangerous to conflate words and violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence.
Why? How do you define violence? Harming people? Insults and false accusations can have much greater harm to a life then a broken leg.
> violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence
When you don't have a way to fight back and make something stop, without resorting to physical aggression, then your only way is to punch back. When the legal system allows you to fight back, then you can walk away, knowing you can call your lawyer or the police.
Insults cannot have greater harm than just about any physical injury. False accusations already have a legal recourse, as they're defamation.
Have you had a broken leg? When you're young it's an alright thing to deal with, when you're older it can be life altering (it might hurt forever or alter your gait). However most spontaneous violence doesn't result in broken legs but rather hits to the head which can very quickly end up at CTEs or other brain trauma.
In an equal society, you really don't want actual violence to be on the same spectrum as speech of any kind. One problem is that ~50% of the population has a massive natural advantage in the realm of actual violence. Would a husband beating his wife because of "violent words" she inflicted on him be ok under the "speech is violence" rubric?
Freedom of speech is not absolute in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
"... expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone. ..."
You probably mean hate speech.
We have laws like that too in Canada. It is a good thing.
It all depends who’s defining “hate”. The people you like who are in charge today won’t be there in 20 years, and if any kind of extremism leaks in to society, you could find yourself unable to advocate for your beliefs without getting arrested.
I mean Canada's a pretty depressing example of how bad those laws can be abused.
How on earth are hate speech laws a good thing? Or did I miss a /s?
For example, the US government is trying to label any posthumous criticism of Charlie Kirk "Hate Speech". You can see how dangerous this could be when the hate-mongers get to decide what is considered hate speech.
Honestly, the current administration baffles me. There is so much activity that flies squarely against the constitution in a not at all subtle or clever way; just blatant, "I don't care."
It's one thing to be disruptive and enforce immigration law "by the books" but entirely separate to then go out of your way to not enforce it legally while at the same time violating or attempting to violate the constitution on pretty fundamental levels.