The US Vs. Europe: Freedom of Expression Vs. Privacy

First time accepted submitter GoddersUK (1262110) writes "Rory Cellan-Jones writes about the recent European Court judgement on the right to be forgotten in terms of US/EU cultural differences (and perhaps a bit of bitterness on the EU side at U.S. influence online): 'He tells me... ..."In the past if you were in Germany you were never worried that some encyclopedia website based in the United States was going to name you as a murderer after you got out of jail because that was inconceivable. Today that can happen, so the cultural gap that was always there about the regulation of speech is becoming more visible."... Europeans who have been told that the Internet is basically ungovernable — and if it does have guiding principles then they come from the land of the free — are expressing some satisfaction that court has refused to believe that.' And, certainly, it seems, here in the UK, that even MEPs keen on the principle don't really know how this ruling will work in practice or what the wider consequences will be. Video here."

Comments

US vs Europe, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting on Europe to win this time!

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

It's a cultural thing. Even Churchill knew that:

“In England, everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden.
In Germany, everything is forbidden, except that which is permitted.
In France, everything is permitted even that which is forbidden.
In the USSR, everything is forbidden, even that which is permitted.”

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally in the Americas, the line of reasoning is: Whatever is not forbidden is allowed. In Europe whatever is permitted is allowed.

You do realize that this is propaganda taught in American schools to feed patriotism, don't you?

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[rvw]

And in the Netherlands everything is permitted, especially what is forbidden.

In the Netherlands, everything is regulated, especially what cannot be permitted.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[yacc143]

This is basically how "data protection" (I guess US people would call it privacy) works currently in the EU.

The issue is, that while the broad outline is the same everywhere in the EU, the law is implemented slightly differently everywhere. And how strongly the authorities are enforcing it is also a local detail. E.g. that's why many US companies have their local subsidiary in Ireland, it's not only taxes, but also the fact that Irish authorities are kind of friendly in regards to their business models.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[flyneye]

In the U.S. , if it is forbidden, a little money to the right politician will get you a permit.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Triklyn]

don't be facetious,

so egyptians are african, israelis are asian, and you've merged the entirety of the americas. thanks for that.

also, you've basically stranded all those island nations into non-classification.

you pissant.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

And a little more will even outlaw it for everyone else.

The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY. Let countries that want to hook up to them hook up to them, and then regulate their own internet however they like. But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

Who says this governs what other people in other countries say?

The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income).
There's a precedent for this, if you can recall when Google China was shut down and redirected to Google's Hong Kong page.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[BitterOak]

The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.

There are two problems here. First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers? Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine? Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then? Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content? Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles? The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[sphealey]

Great! When the pirates show up [1] and the "island in nowhere" owners call for help from the US Navy, Royal Navy, Spanish Navy... I'm sure there will be prompt response.

In any case, how are you going to get qualified people to live in the middle of the ocean? Oh, they're going to live in Brooklyn and telecommute? I see a tiny flaw in your "stateless Internet" plan...

sPh

[1] I had a site in a reasonably advanced developing nation where all EDP equipment was twice cleaned out at gunpoint by marauders, along with the copper wire to the phone company stolen. Why they didn't just take the electric power transformers while they were at it I don't know. And that was in a functioning nation-state with a not-hopeless police function.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rudy_wayne]

While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate.

It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one.

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[dnavid]

The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU. Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income).

It will be interesting to see how this ruling actually gets implemented by member states of the EU. It appears to be highly problematic for various reasons. First, because the ruling while comporting with EU law appears inconsistent with how the internet actually works. Taken to its logical conclusion it states that it could be legal in the EU for someone to publish information that can theoretically be accessed by the general public, but illegal for anyone else to point out that fact. The ruling also states that its legal interpretation only applies to legal entities that are actually within the EU. That means global entities like Google can be held to the legal standard articulated within their ruling, but entities outside the EU are completely immune. So, a search engine in China, say, that had no subsidiaries within the EU would be free to ignore EU's attempt to implement this "right to be forgotten" principle. But if a large enough search engine anywhere contains that information, its not hard to presume technology that would make it accessible from anywhere. In the extreme, you'd just balkanize search, with different search engines referring to each other to access content an individual search engine was legally not allowed to offer.

More likely you'd simply make it much more inconvenient for countries that attempt to enforce this type of law to access global search. And you'd encourage your own citizens to use search engines outside the regulatory umbrella of your own country to obtain the most complete search results. The unintended consequences of this type of ruling seem to have no end to the list of detrimental collateral damage that they can cause.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rudy_wayne]

The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.

How are those two things not exactly the same?

A fact is a fact. If a newspaper reports a fact and a Google search returns articles which state that same fact, how is there a difference? Why can Goolge be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of a free speech free market solution. The government didn't need to come down on him, all it took was shareholders raising some eyebrows and customers withdrawing their business.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[beelsebob]

The problem is, what you're saying here is actually "enforcing your rules on other nations". You want the rule to be "I'm free to do whatever I want", which is basically the American ruleset. You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, summarizing the philosophy of Voltaire

Also summarized as: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[sphealey]

= = = It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one. = = =

So... your political theory is "libertarianism for me but not for thee"? Corporations to be free to do whatever they want, unless they violate some unwritten norms of right-wing thought? That doesn't sound very, um, free to me.

sPh

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[dreamchaser]

No, there were plenty of businesses/corporations in Colonial times. There were not necessarily megacorps like we're starting to see but they existed a plenty.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question.
If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers,
then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.

Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine?

You are not an internet search engine.
The court distinguishes between (1) a newspaper with a searchable index and (2) a website that indexes other websites on the internet.

Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then?

Still not an internet search engine.

Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content?

The decision is dense, but readable.
If you want the highlights, just skip to the conclusion

TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content
Still TLDR: With all kinds of legal parsing to determine who is processing the data and whether they are under European jurisdiction.

Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?

No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.

The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?

The line is not fuzzy and I do not see "the problem."
The only problem I see is that this is horribly inconvenient for Google and every other search engine.
But, according to the court, the inconvenience to Google's business model does not outweigh citizens rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name.

However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

Don't try to make this more complicated than it is.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company. And just like today, the megacorps of the day got special treatment from their respective governments.

That's one of the things we fought a war to get away from.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.

There is a difference. The line might be a bit gray, but it's there.

So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.)

Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?

I am just curious what your answer to that would be.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There is a certain stunning irony in someone on the US side of this particular debate complaining about nations wanting to enforce their own laws in other nations.

For one thing, that doesn't appear to be what the ruling actually says.

That aside, someone from the United States is arguing against enforcing local laws abroad? Seriously?!

I say let's go with your idea. It sounds great. You can have your free speech on your part of the wild west Internet, and we can have our privacy protection in our part of the grown up, normal laws do actually apply here Internet. Also, maybe we can go back to having reasonable IP laws. And perhaps we might even keep the tax revenues from sales by Internet companies in our countries. With a bit of luck, we might even develop more home grown tech industry that way, too.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[BitterOak]

First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question. If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers, then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.

What "special status" granted to newspapers? Is this a European thing? In America, everyone has the same free speech rights that newspapers do. Newspapers aren't special.

TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content .

Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?

No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.

Your last two comments contradict each other. You say it's a search engine if it links to offsite content, but then in the next answer you say newspapers are allowed to link to offsite content without being classed as a search engine.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[ShanghaiBill]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company.

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history. For centuries, the East India Company had their own army, waged war in their own name, and occasionally executed people that failed to pay their bills. No modern corporation even comes close.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Darinbob]

It's not only newspapers that get to keep the info, but any non-search web site apparently. So you can't even divide it based on journalism. What is it about "internet search engine" that is special compared to "online legal database", "hall of records", or "almanac of 1972"? It's like censoring only the card catalog in a library.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[arth1]

seems to me that basic free speech and free thought is that you cannot command me to forget something, nor command me not to share what I know (ignoring confidentiality agreements which are irrelevant here).

And here I think the great cultural divide between Europe and USA rears its head. While you cannot be commanded to forget, in Europe, you are expected to forget. The judicial systems of Europe are based on being able to fully rehabilitate, and the former offender's slate is wiped clean.
In the US, you continue to be punished for past offenses until the day you die. Whether you've been released or not, you don't have a right, legally or culturally to a clean slate.

Personally, I think this difference is due to religious thinking, where the great majority of Americans believe in a "soul", and that a 60 year old man can and should be held responsible for what a 20 year old did. Add that justice is largely revenge based (an eye for an eye), and there must always be someone to punish, even after the world has moved on.

The Northern European view is that people change, and that the 60 year old man is not the same person as the 20 year old. People change, and should not be held responsible for views they no longer hold or crimes for which they've served their sentence. There is no "soul", so when the person has changed, the decent thing to do is to forget and not bring it up again. Give people a chance to start over.

Newspapers are historical documents. But someone in Northern Europe going through old newspapers to dig up old dirt is seen as an arsehole. While not illegal, it's against all cultural decency.. in the US, it would be seen as due diligence.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history.

Yes. But to say that they were worse then is not the same as saying they aren't bad now.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others.

This is patently untrue. The atheist (let's assume he's a militant atheist) feels that religion rots kids mind and is completely horrified by the thought of government support for a particular religion like Christianity. So not only does he see it as personal harm, in his honest opinion it is grossly harmful to society as a whole. (This is, in fact, a situation that is rather close to a devout Christian believing that homosexuality is a crime against God and society. BUT I'm not claiming either side is right.)

And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination.

I don't give a damn whether he is CEO of Citicorp or a mail clerk in a medium-sized business. Business is business, and personal politics are something else. Too much mixing of business with politics is already one of the biggest problems with this country today. We hardly need more of it.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[kwbauer]

Technically, he would have been fired for having a political belief, which would make it a criminal act in the US.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Mr. Slippery]

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

Nope. You've confused "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences." When you say hateful and vile things about a group of people,whether you're on or off the clock when you say them, no one in that group can work effectively with you. They know, after all, that your opinions don't change when you come into the office.

To take a recent example, Brendan Eich has the right to say and believe whatever bigoted nonsense he wants. Others have the right to say "fuck you" and choose not to associate with him as a result of that. If those people's free choices mean he can't do a certain job and so he doesn't get the job he wants, cry me a river; I can't get the job I want either. (I keep looking but no one is offering a six-figure salary to be a subject for hedonic engineering studies but no one's hiring.)

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[phantomfive]

I believe the problem here is that Google wants to have a presence in Europe (including offices for business and tax purposes). Otherwise they would have already ignored the EU.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

Personally, I think this difference is due to religious thinking, where the great majority of Americans believe in a "soul", and that a 60 year old man can and should be held responsible for what a 20 year old did. Add that justice is largely revenge based (an eye for an eye), and there must always be someone to punish, even after the world has moved on.

Absolute nonsense! The US used to believe in rehabilitation, which is actually a Christian belief. We used to believe that double jeopardy was unjust too, but now it's common place for people to be tried for the same crime twice, once in criminal court and again in civil court (verdict in either court does not sway the other court). We used to believe in innocence before guilt, and we thought mens rea was required for a crime.

Like most of Europe and the UK, US courts and laws were based on Christian Law and Philosophy.

If anything we have lost our sense of justice as the US has become anti-Christian, and yes the US has become very anti Christian.

For posterity, I am claiming you are wrong about the reasons we have lost our sense of justice. I am not claiming someone's Religion is right or wrong. Look at the lying scum that sits in a huge number of political offices and it's obvious that they are corrupt and immoral. US Culture lacks morality and faith, media has done a great job of removing both of those things.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

Your point probably should have been the difference between a consumer boycott and a government whim, like the US Government has become so good at. I agree with you but will extrapolate a bit on the difference.

I boycott Microsoft and have for decades, I think they have poor business practices and cheat people out of money in various ways very intentionally. My boycott means that I persuade others not to purchase their products, including businesses. This is the power of the consumer under a Capitalist economy, and it was well defined by Adam Smith as a tool for maintaining balance in the economy.

Governments acting without legal basis is harmful to the economy and is not part of the capitalist economy nor is it within it's Constitutional Rights when it does. (Note the 'legal basis' there) This was done in the US, and today our economy is still in a shamble from the effects. The "Stimulus" to banks is my primary argument there, and the bailout was a reaction to deregulation which should have prevented banks from becoming large enough to have catastrophic impact on our society. The FDIC can not guarantee these mega banks, so has lost much of it's purpose as well. None of these things have been corrected, because our Government is completely out of control currently and acting beyond their lawful abilities as defined by the US Constitution.

In other words, there is no provision in the US Constitution to protect or harm any private business for any reason other than violation of Federal law. If a law does not exist the Government can not (or should not be able to) arbitrarily take action, such as forcing the sale of the LA Clippers or Chik-Fillet.

Be a good consumer and boycott when you believe a corporation/company needs to be sent a message. In fact you are failing to perform a primary duty of consumers in the economy if you don't.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

No modern corporation even comes close.

I beg to differ, as do tens of thousands of South Americans that were slaughtered by Dole goons. That is just one of the few we know about, so there are plenty just as bad and probably worse today.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Tom]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

Like, say, the USA?

It's funny how americans complain about everyone elses imperialism, and are completely blind to the many ways in which they aggressively export their own values.

and then regulate their own internet

There is no such thing as "their own Internet". That's like saying "their own atmosphere". Newsflash: Bits and air molecules don't give a fuck about political borders.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

Newspapers don't get special consideration, but the court made it clear that purely factual publishing is not covered by this ruling. Such publishing is, in general, protected. Of course it must follow the law, so for example in the UK suspects accused of a crime cannot be named if they are under 18, and in Germany they can't refer to spent criminal convictions. The key point is that articles are written by people, who are responsible for complying with the law, and report factual information.

Google doesn't publish, it gathers and aggregates data about people. It essentially creates a profile of someone based on publicly available information. It does this automatically, and thus far not in accordance with various EU laws. The court is saying that it must come into compliance, like all publishers must do already.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Savage-Rabbit]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company.

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history. For centuries, the East India Company had their own army, waged war in their own name, and occasionally executed people that failed to pay their bills. No modern corporation even comes close.

Today corporations either get their governments to wage their wars for them like the Americans did in Iraq or more commonly, they hire mercenary companies to fight wars. And I'm not talking about 'company' in the military sense, there are many commercial companies in the UK and now in the USA who offer this as a service. There is a myriad of modern examples of this such companies at work, especially from Africa.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most of Europe and the UK, US courts and laws were based on Christian Law and Philosophy

Actually, most of Europe is based on Roman law. It could be argued that "Roman law" is basically the codifications that were made by Justinian I (who was a christian) in the 6th century AD, but those were based on prior law that actually predates christianity.

Poor source, but interesting reading if you're into history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history#European_laws

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property

If you believe in separation of state and church then that is indeed a serious problem. If the authorities fail to act you have a responsibility to take action yourself, to protect democracy and your country's values from corruption.

Bad example I think.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NotSanguine]

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

I agree. Lots of people need to get it through their heads that even when it is not government, but "social pressure" that restricts speech, it is still a restriction on speech. It is not JUST something in the Constitution, it is a long-held (and hard-won) CULTURAL VALUE. The reason it appears in the Constitution is that the Founders knew what it was like to not have it. And the reason for not having it is not very important. Whether that reason is government or social pressure, not having it is still not having it.

The US Constitution restricts the government from trampling your right to free expression. It does not require everyone else to give you an "atta boy" when you open your mouth and say something they find objectionable. Just as you can speak your mind, so can others, even if that point of view disagrees with yours. They can even try to convince others that their point of view is the correct one and not yours. Gasp!

This is rooted in the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas espoused by John Stuart Mill, whose Utilitarian philosophy greatly influenced 18th century thought and the founders of the US constitution.

Okay. I tell you what, why don't you go to those people at your job whom you find sexually desirable and tell them (in great detail) all about the sexual acts you want to perform with them. By your measure, that's you exercising freedom of expression. According to your statement, you believe that your employer should ignore this, because your free speech rights should not be impinged.

As for the Brandon Eich/Mozilla deal, IIRC, he resigned. He was not fired.

Beyond that, your right to freedom of expression is not impinged, you can say almost anything you want. But that doesn't mean you have freedom from the expression of others. If someone disagrees with you, they have the same right to express themselves as you do. If they can convince others to agree with their point of view, and you can't, that speaks to your either the quality of your ideas, the quality of how you express those ideas, or both.

Saying, "Waaah! people held me accountable for the things I said! That's not fair! I should be able to say anything I want at all times and no one should be able to do anything about it!" reflects a third grade mentaility, IMHO. Grow up.

Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[TrollstonButterbeans]

There are a large number of things that Europe "gets right".

Europe doesn't realize that privacy in theory becomes censorship in practice.

There are a large number of things that the USA "gets right".

The USA doesn't realize an *unregulated* free market without *PROPER* government supervision means all companies merge into one company and then do really shitty things.

Which form of stupid to do you prefer: ___________ >>--- fill in your choice.

(This is my view of what happens, in Europe ultimately there ends up being a Ministry of Censorship that results in websites warning about cookies and the plutocracy having more rights, while in the USA evil corporations end up being immune to government because they contribute $$$ to our broken political system.)

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[ravenshrike]

Oh they damn well do realize it, and the governments at least consider that working as intended.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As far as I'm aware, there is literally no country in the world that actually has 100% free speech protection in law. Certainly the US does not: there are numerous things that you are not free to express without penalty. You can shout about your theoretical First Amendment protections as much as you want, but you can still be sued for infringing copyright, you can still be arrested for threatening to kill someone, etc.

Equating privacy protection with censorship misses the point. There's an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose. It's not strictly true from a modern legal perspective, but the point that you need to balance many rights and freedoms for everyone is just as valid as it ever was. There will always be a tension between freedom of expression and right to privacy, and using inflammatory language like "censorship" to describe anything but an absolutely one-sided position isn't going to achieve anything constructive.

In fact, it's rather ironic that in one paragraph you attack the idea of protecting privacy as a form of censorship, yet in the very next paragraph you argue for government supervision and market regulation so that companies are not free to act as they wish.

TTIP

[manu0601]

Don't worry, the upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will fix that divergence by removing any European specific thing from Europe.

Re:TTIP

[Opportunist]

In other words, we will have shitty meat, shitty gen-manipulated corn, shitty clothing, shitty living standards and shitty jobs.

But we will have the right to freely express our dissatisfaction with them.

And the balanced perspective...

[jandersen]

Yes, it is coming up the the European elections over here, and this 'story' should be seen on that background: as a self-serving piece of propaganda from one of the wing-nuts.

...bitterness on the EU side at U.S. influence online.

Meh? I suspect most of us are not so much bitter at all as simply plain, old tired of American self-importance. The fact is that American influence is on the decline and has been for many years; any bitterness is probably on the American side. The Chinese are taking over as the great influencers of cultural and intetllectual expression, but these things always shift; it is only a few decades ago that it was Italy, UK, France or Germany.

Europeans who have been told that the Internet is basically ungovernable â" and if it does have guiding principles then they come from the land of the free...

Ask a real American if USA is the 'Land of the Free' any more, if ever it was. The internet is not ungovernable; there are many ways govern, and not all rely on legislation, democracy or use of weapons. The rulers of the internet are not national governments, but big corporations like Google, Facebook etc, who have a near monopoly on the most popular methods to access information. If you control the sources of information, you control people's minds. In Europe we have a very sound scepticism towards the wisdom of letting unelected corporations have that much power.

Re:I want to become an American and move out of Eu

[radio4fan]

Photography has become illegal in Europe due to misguided "privacy" laws. It's just ridiculous that I cannot do street photography in Europe because the European governments have decided that we photographers should ask people before we take their photo or publish it!

While this is true in certain countries in certain circumstances (France and Spain come to mind) it is certainly not true in the UK.

So this isn't a Europe-wide problem, and definitely isn't the fault of the EU.

Re:Cultural divide is right

[nosferatu1001]

No, a lot of you left because you werent free to discriminate against others as much as you thought they should be discriminated against. its why you still have fucked up ideas about nudity always being sexual, for one.

Re:Only problem is that google has assets in Europ

[gnasher719]

If google had no assets in Europe, it could shoot Europe the big finger,

Even without assets, they would risk any ad revenue coming from Europe. If there is a fine to be paid and no assets to recover, they can just contact everyone owing money to Google (like every advertiser) and tell them to make the payments to the EU instead of Google.