5 ms·

‘Ostensibly’ does not mean what you think it means.

lostgame 8y ago
I think, clearly, the larger issue here is the false idea that the USA is a proponent of free speech or human rights. I would certainly never in a million years hope anyone would seriously claim the US to be the greatest country in the world.
- grecy 8y ago
  > I would certainly never in a million years hope anyone would seriously claim the US to be the greatest country in the world. I am quite certain a significant proportion of Americans genuinely believe it is.
  - balibebas 8y ago
    Argumentum ad populum. Are you really going to generalize as well?
- majewsky 8y ago
  You're in for a bad surprise. A lot of people were opposed to Trump's "Make America Great Again" claim because the claim insinuates that the US might not be literally the greatest country in the world right now.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  I hate many things about what the US is becoming--or has always been--but it does have some of the strongest free-speech rights in the world (though less so in recent decades as other nations catch up), and the world's highest public support for freedom of speech. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-cou...
  - omegaworks 8y ago
    The Trump administration has stumbled backwards very publicly with regard to the people that the framers intended for free speech rights to protect: journalists. From overt anti-journalist rhetoric[1], to possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi[2], a journalist critical of the Saudi regime. "Free speech" has been co-opted so effectively by the far-right movement that the same people who wave it around to defend debate of genocide simultaneously advocate for the prosecution of journalists. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35EWlJMmO4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35EWlJMmO4s 2. https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1064718127903268864 https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1064718127903268864
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi Not central to the point, but Kashoggi was not a US national. He was a US-resident Saudi citizen. It's possible to be a US national but not a citizen, but Kashoggi wasn't one: https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html
      - omegaworks 8y ago
        Quibbling over status is an interesting fallout of the same right-wing nationalist rhetoric. You're right though. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident on an O Visa with US citizen children on his way to a green card[1]. Should we not care about his murder as much then? 1. https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khashoggi-under-us-law-and-constitution/ https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khash...
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Should we not care about his murder as much then? Actually, the correction was so that people wouldn't continue making the mistake, not because his citizenship status is a critical point. The error is a distraction from the main point that is avoidable in the future.
- ameister14 8y ago
  I think that the USA is definitely a proponent of free speech, and actually that it takes it to extremes. Pretty much the only speech outlawed is child pornography and that which a reasonable person would see as inciting imminent violence. That's a pretty high bar, higher than any other country I've ever heard of.
  - learc83 8y ago
    I agree that the US has stronger free speech protections than any country I'm aware of, but we have more restrictions than the 2 you've mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Yes, words under copyright and defamatory statements. Not a huge expansion, covered under 'pretty much' in my opinion. Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned.
      - learc83 8y ago
        >copyright and defamatory statements These are much bigger restrictions that impact far more people than the others you mentioned. >Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned. There's also huge limitations on commercial speech; obscenity (which covers more than child pornography); reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions; perjury; blackmail; harassment; solicitations to commit crimes (not just inciting violence); student's speech while in school.
        ameister14 8y ago
        Obscenity doesn't cover much more than child pornography. It used to, but not anymore. You should read Reno v ACLU. The reasonable time, manner and place restrictions aren't enforced and also wouldn't be upheld, but you're right, perjury, blackmail and some kinds of harassment aren't covered. Solicitations to commit crimes actually aren't always illegal.

I think, clearly, the larger issue here is the false idea that the USA is a proponent of free speech or human rights. I would certainly never in a million years hope anyone would seriously claim the US to be the greatest country in the world.

grecy 8y ago
> I would certainly never in a million years hope anyone would seriously claim the US to be the greatest country in the world. I am quite certain a significant proportion of Americans genuinely believe it is.
- balibebas 8y ago
  Argumentum ad populum. Are you really going to generalize as well?
majewsky 8y ago
You're in for a bad surprise. A lot of people were opposed to Trump's "Make America Great Again" claim because the claim insinuates that the US might not be literally the greatest country in the world right now.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
I hate many things about what the US is becoming--or has always been--but it does have some of the strongest free-speech rights in the world (though less so in recent decades as other nations catch up), and the world's highest public support for freedom of speech. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-cou...
- omegaworks 8y ago
  The Trump administration has stumbled backwards very publicly with regard to the people that the framers intended for free speech rights to protect: journalists. From overt anti-journalist rhetoric[1], to possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi[2], a journalist critical of the Saudi regime. "Free speech" has been co-opted so effectively by the far-right movement that the same people who wave it around to defend debate of genocide simultaneously advocate for the prosecution of journalists. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35EWlJMmO4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35EWlJMmO4s 2. https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1064718127903268864 https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1064718127903268864
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi Not central to the point, but Kashoggi was not a US national. He was a US-resident Saudi citizen. It's possible to be a US national but not a citizen, but Kashoggi wasn't one: https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html
    - omegaworks 8y ago
      Quibbling over status is an interesting fallout of the same right-wing nationalist rhetoric. You're right though. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident on an O Visa with US citizen children on his way to a green card[1]. Should we not care about his murder as much then? 1. https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khashoggi-under-us-law-and-constitution/ https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khash...
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Should we not care about his murder as much then? Actually, the correction was so that people wouldn't continue making the mistake, not because his citizenship status is a critical point. The error is a distraction from the main point that is avoidable in the future.
ameister14 8y ago
I think that the USA is definitely a proponent of free speech, and actually that it takes it to extremes. Pretty much the only speech outlawed is child pornography and that which a reasonable person would see as inciting imminent violence. That's a pretty high bar, higher than any other country I've ever heard of.
- learc83 8y ago
  I agree that the US has stronger free speech protections than any country I'm aware of, but we have more restrictions than the 2 you've mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - ameister14 8y ago
    Yes, words under copyright and defamatory statements. Not a huge expansion, covered under 'pretty much' in my opinion. Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned.
    - learc83 8y ago
      >copyright and defamatory statements These are much bigger restrictions that impact far more people than the others you mentioned. >Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned. There's also huge limitations on commercial speech; obscenity (which covers more than child pornography); reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions; perjury; blackmail; harassment; solicitations to commit crimes (not just inciting violence); student's speech while in school.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        Obscenity doesn't cover much more than child pornography. It used to, but not anymore. You should read Reno v ACLU. The reasonable time, manner and place restrictions aren't enforced and also wouldn't be upheld, but you're right, perjury, blackmail and some kinds of harassment aren't covered. Solicitations to commit crimes actually aren't always illegal.