4 ms·

I honestly don't understand why anyone with this attitude wants to live in the United States, when the default worldwide is this, and the United States is the s

I honestly don't understand why anyone with this attitude wants to live in the United States, when the default worldwide is this, and the United States is the sole exception.

krapp 3y ago
The US is not and has never been an exception, it has always recognized legal limits on free speech[0]. You may disagree with those limits but they've always been there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  The US is the exception in the sense that it is the only country that has seriously tried to narrow down these limits to what is absolutely necessary.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Obviously not. "Seriously" and "absolutely necessary" are subjective terms, essentially matters of personal opinion, and plenty of Americans argue that the limits in the US are either too loose or too rigid (see the current debates around social media, Section 230 and whether or not private platforms should be forced to act as common carriers.) Meanwhile, cultures differ, and people outside of the US may well see their own governments' drawing the lines elsewhere, for instance banning of hate speech and Nazi propaganda, as "absolutely necessary."
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      Yeah, this attitude that what sort of limit is absolutely necessary is "subjective", "essentially a matter of personal opinion" is exactly what the US (not every single american, but american first amendment jurisprudence) is the exception to.
      - krapp 3y ago
        It really isn't, even the Supreme Court has differed on the matter over time.
        amadeuspagel 3y ago
        To differ doesn't mean to accept that something is subjective. Even mathematicians have differed about proofs.
        krapp 3y ago
        > To differ doesn't mean to accept that something is subjective. Yes it does. That's what subjective means. Obviously, many people refuse to accept that their personal opinions on political matters are anything less than absolute, immutable, objective fact, but that isn't relevant, because refusing to accept that doesn't make it, or you, objective. >Even mathematicians have differed about proofs. Politics isn't math. There is no equation or statement that can quantify the American model of freedom of speech, nor prove it correct, much less more correct than all other models, in the same way as E=MC^2 or Pythagoras' theorem.
        amadeuspagel 3y ago
        See: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/social.pdf https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/social.pdf

I honestly don't understand why anyone with this attitude wants to live in the United States, when the default worldwide is this, and the United States is the sole exception.

krapp 3y ago

The US is not and has never been an exception, it has always recognized legal limits on free speech[0]. You may disagree with those limits but they've always been there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

amadeuspagel 3y ago
The US is the exception in the sense that it is the only country that has seriously tried to narrow down these limits to what is absolutely necessary.
- krapp 3y ago
  Obviously not. "Seriously" and "absolutely necessary" are subjective terms, essentially matters of personal opinion, and plenty of Americans argue that the limits in the US are either too loose or too rigid (see the current debates around social media, Section 230 and whether or not private platforms should be forced to act as common carriers.) Meanwhile, cultures differ, and people outside of the US may well see their own governments' drawing the lines elsewhere, for instance banning of hate speech and Nazi propaganda, as "absolutely necessary."
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    Yeah, this attitude that what sort of limit is absolutely necessary is "subjective", "essentially a matter of personal opinion" is exactly what the US (not every single american, but american first amendment jurisprudence) is the exception to.
    - krapp 3y ago
      It really isn't, even the Supreme Court has differed on the matter over time.
      - amadeuspagel 3y ago
        To differ doesn't mean to accept that something is subjective. Even mathematicians have differed about proofs.
        krapp 3y ago
        > To differ doesn't mean to accept that something is subjective. Yes it does. That's what subjective means. Obviously, many people refuse to accept that their personal opinions on political matters are anything less than absolute, immutable, objective fact, but that isn't relevant, because refusing to accept that doesn't make it, or you, objective. >Even mathematicians have differed about proofs. Politics isn't math. There is no equation or statement that can quantify the American model of freedom of speech, nor prove it correct, much less more correct than all other models, in the same way as E=MC^2 or Pythagoras' theorem.
        amadeuspagel 3y ago
        See: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/social.pdf https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/social.pdf