Hi, I'm the poster that originally objected to the lack of first-amendment protection in Spain, and the nonchalance of the other poster with regard to this fact. I just read your link and I like it. I'd like to quote it so it's part of our thread here:
>1. The following rights are recognised and protected:
> a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction.
> b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation.
> c) the right to academic freedom.
> d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever.
I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized.
The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about?
This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article):
>The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.
>It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.
It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever."
Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is.
So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.
The problem here is that a court has determined that the referendum is illegal. So helping to do an illegal act is not allowed, and preventing it is one of the exceptions of free speech. I think advertising for drug dealers in the USA also wouldn't be covered by free speech.
The other problem is using public funds for something illegal. The use of public money is very restricted in Spain. There is a body of civil servants (interventores) whose only job is approving and supervising every euro spent by any gobernment entity. If there is public spending involved in the development or promotion of this app this is a big problem.
>1. The following rights are recognised and protected:
> a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction.
> b) the right to literary, artistic, scientific and technical production and creation.
> c) the right to academic freedom.
> d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever.
I didn't quote points 2, 3, 4 and 5 immediately after, you can click on the PDF parent poster quoted they're on page 16 and page 17 there. They're about prior censorship, mass media, and a couple of exceptions concerning privacy, and how publications can be seized.
The language I did quote, though, is very good. So the question is, why doesn't this apply to the case we're reading about?
This is what we're reading about (quoted from our article):
>The app, available on Google Play until just before 7 p.m. on Friday, helps people to find their polling station via their address and shows the closest polling stations on Google Maps via GPS, the name of the town or keywords.
>It also allows users to share links to polling station locations.
It's directly under point A "by any other means of reproduction" and it's under point b "technical production and creation" and point d "freely communicate any truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever."
Is information about polling stations, distributed by app, truthful information disseminated by any means whatsoever? Clearly it is.
So why doesn't what we just quoted have teeth? This goes directly to what I'm saying that although it might be written somewhere, the (excellent) language you referred to doesn't have the force that the first amendment does in the United States.