4 ms·

While I do sympathize with this student, you have to be careful when criticizing a hostile government you are a citizen of. Only in the United States do we have

While I do sympathize with this student, you have to be careful when criticizing a hostile government you are a citizen of. Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion.

gattilorenz 4y ago
> In the United States, and many other countries, we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. The same cannot be said for countries like China, Russia, Belarus, etc. There, I fixed it for you. But it's also naive to think that the government cannot make your life impossible if it's really motivated to do so, even in the US, despite the principle.
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  Well, that's what the US is currently weaponizing the USD to do. Like when they froze Russia out of the global financial system, but France and Germany kept paying them for natgas and oil.
  - seszett 4y ago
    I might be wrong, but I think it's the EU (along with US and UK) that blocked Russia from Swift. Most EU countries keep paying Russia for gas and oil (as an exception to the banking sanctions) because they are really dependent on it, not because they don't want to weaponize the Euro. France is not much dependent on Russian imports though, but Germany is along with Italy, the Netherlands and Hungary mostly.
throw93232 4y ago
Is it allowed now to talk about laptop from hell? US is a joke!
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  It was always allowed, but what people believe about it is up for debate. But even then just barely, due to the deliberate burying of the story by some very powerful people
tomcam 4y ago
> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. Uh no. Here’s a list of people incarcerated by President Obama for criticism of the USA: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/employee-speech-and-whistleblowers/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-it-11-or-should-we https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/employee-speech-and-wh...
- datalopers 4y ago
  Leaking classified information entrusted to you is a fair bit different than voicing a critical opinion.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    Constitution doesn’t distinguish between them. Did you approve of Daniel Ellsberg being jailed.
sofixa 4y ago
> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. I'm sorry, but were you educated in the US? That's just blatantly false, and on the level of a Russian praising their army's success in Ukraine. In the EU, Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand and some other countries individuals are protected from retaliation if they're critical of their government. In fact it's the norm for democratic countries. Of course some pretty government officials might try to abuse their position in personal retaliation (happened in Germany recently) but that's why all those countries also have an independent judiciary to control such potential abuses.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  You can absolutely get legal action pursued for voicing an opinion (probably a bad one, but an opinion nonetheless) in most of the countries you named.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    From an individual for defamation? Yes. From the state for some very specific opinions (we should gas all the Jews)? Yes. But that's literally the same everywhere with free speech. The specifics vary slightly, e.g. in the US being a woman and topless, or saying you want to murder the US president is a crime, in France insulting Jews is a crime. There is no place on earth with absolute free speech.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      You are drawing a false equivalence. 1. Being topless is both legal in plenty of states and also not a matter of speech. 2. There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology. For instance, in Germany, the Communist Party is illegal - it is banned. In Germany, expressing an (awful) opinion that the Holocaust did not occur is illegal and you will be charged. In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned. The approaches to speech are very different, I am not sure why you are trying to draw an equivalence that does not exist.

gattilorenz 4y ago

> In the United States, and many other countries, we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. The same cannot be said for countries like China, Russia, Belarus, etc. There, I fixed it for you. But it's also naive to think that the government cannot make your life impossible if it's really motivated to do so, even in the US, despite the principle.

mise_en_place 4y ago
Well, that's what the US is currently weaponizing the USD to do. Like when they froze Russia out of the global financial system, but France and Germany kept paying them for natgas and oil.
- seszett 4y ago
  I might be wrong, but I think it's the EU (along with US and UK) that blocked Russia from Swift. Most EU countries keep paying Russia for gas and oil (as an exception to the banking sanctions) because they are really dependent on it, not because they don't want to weaponize the Euro. France is not much dependent on Russian imports though, but Germany is along with Italy, the Netherlands and Hungary mostly.

throw93232 4y ago

Is it allowed now to talk about laptop from hell? US is a joke!

mise_en_place 4y ago
It was always allowed, but what people believe about it is up for debate. But even then just barely, due to the deliberate burying of the story by some very powerful people

tomcam 4y ago

> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. Uh no. Here’s a list of people incarcerated by President Obama for criticism of the USA: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/employee-speech-and-whistleblowers/leak-prosecutions-obama-takes-it-11-or-should-we https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/employee-speech-and-wh...

datalopers 4y ago
Leaking classified information entrusted to you is a fair bit different than voicing a critical opinion.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Constitution doesn’t distinguish between them. Did you approve of Daniel Ellsberg being jailed.

sofixa 4y ago

> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. I'm sorry, but were you educated in the US? That's just blatantly false, and on the level of a Russian praising their army's success in Ukraine. In the EU, Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand and some other countries individuals are protected from retaliation if they're critical of their government. In fact it's the norm for democratic countries. Of course some pretty government officials might try to abuse their position in personal retaliation (happened in Germany recently) but that's why all those countries also have an independent judiciary to control such potential abuses.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whimsicalism 4y ago
You can absolutely get legal action pursued for voicing an opinion (probably a bad one, but an opinion nonetheless) in most of the countries you named.
- sofixa 4y ago
  From an individual for defamation? Yes. From the state for some very specific opinions (we should gas all the Jews)? Yes. But that's literally the same everywhere with free speech. The specifics vary slightly, e.g. in the US being a woman and topless, or saying you want to murder the US president is a crime, in France insulting Jews is a crime. There is no place on earth with absolute free speech.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    You are drawing a false equivalence. 1. Being topless is both legal in plenty of states and also not a matter of speech. 2. There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology. For instance, in Germany, the Communist Party is illegal - it is banned. In Germany, expressing an (awful) opinion that the Holocaust did not occur is illegal and you will be charged. In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned. The approaches to speech are very different, I am not sure why you are trying to draw an equivalence that does not exist.