3 ms·

> The US doesn't have free speech. Oh, it absolutely does. It's really the only country that I would say absolutely does. No other country has free speech ens

> The US doesn't have free speech. Oh, it absolutely does. It's really the only country that I would say absolutely does. No other country has free speech enshrined in it's constitution to the same extent, nor such a strong history of caselaw defending it. The US has a lot of problems, but as a people they are almost as zealous in defending free speech as they are in defending the 2nd amendment. In most other countries other concerns might take priority, but often and only in the US free speech will be the first consideration. > Find something you can't say in the US Anything can be said.

immibis 3y ago
> Anything can be said. Please, go to your local town square and hand out flyers about your plot to assassinate the President. Report back with your results. Oh, and I can predict your reply. You will tell me some excuse for why that isn't really speech, or it is speech but it shouldn't be free even in countries that have 100% free speech (which is a completely absurd argument, by the way - I must recommend you try the "that isn't speech" approach as at least that one isn't not an immediate formal contradiction).
- astrange 3y ago
  People like that often don't get arrested. At most the Secret Service will take note and make them stay home if there's a VIP anywhere nearby. There's lots of crazy people and we don't keep them in prisons anymore.
  - immibis 3y ago
    It's not very free if you can get confined to your house for saying it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > Please, go to your local town square and hand out flyers about your plot to assassinate the President. Report back with your results. Ah, lol. I thought you might try something like this. Yes, there are some exceptions, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater, but they generally don't count. They are not restrictions on anything you actually want to say or communicate, they are restrictions on causing a riot or disturbance. The difference is in the US you can actually say anything you want to say to communicate any opinion or information you want. That isn't true in most other first world countries. Just look at people getting arrested for protesting Charles' coronation in the UK, people all over Australia, NZ, Europe etc being arrested in pro Palestine (NOT pro Hamas) protests, people being arrested or facing legal issues for giving an opinion on something COVID related in countries other than the US..etc etc etc. > Oh, and I can predict your reply. Well, you made a disingenuous argument and were well aware that you did, so that isn't entirely surprising. However, I clarified the claim making that tired old fallacious response entirely irrelevant.
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    Ideological purity may wish otherwise, but there’s a meta-layer here: there are inevitable limits to “free speech” when said speech genuinely threatens the institution that otherwise allows free speech. You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. You are not free to share speech that’s been deemed classified. You are not free to conspire with foreign enemies. etc. While the US does protect many forms of forms of political speech that are deemed impotent or that advocate radical position within the rubric of its institutions, it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. Because that's not speech, as in an opinion. It's a call to action. But you can speak all day long about how the president is useless and should be replaced. People in the UK couldn't even protest the coronation of Charles without facing arrest. > it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). Simply not true. People get arrested for speech in other first world countries that would not happen in the US. > It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all. It very much is.
      - immibis 3y ago
        Calls to action are speech. When I open my mouth and words come out of it, that is speech. When I punch you in the face, that is not speech. When I tell someone else to punch you in the face, that is speech. When he punches you, that is not speech. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. If I'm not free to tell someone to punch you in the face, then I don't have absolute free speech.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > Calls to action are speech. Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous. Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt at making a point to begin with. Instead of saying 'freedom of speech', since you want to be so technical, we can say 'freedom to express any opinion'. The USA has significantly more freedom for people to 'express any opinion' than other first world countries. > I don't know how much simpler I can make it. You're not making anything 'simple', you're making a disingenuous point to try and support an even more, forgive me, asinine point that isn't really correct except in a meaningless semantic way. You're ignoring the spirit of what is being discussed and acting like you've refuted a claim; you haven't even come close. Why don't you actually try and address the claim made instead of playing silly semantic games in lieu of an argument?

immibis 3y ago

> Anything can be said. Please, go to your local town square and hand out flyers about your plot to assassinate the President. Report back with your results. Oh, and I can predict your reply. You will tell me some excuse for why that isn't really speech, or it is speech but it shouldn't be free even in countries that have 100% free speech (which is a completely absurd argument, by the way - I must recommend you try the "that isn't speech" approach as at least that one isn't not an immediate formal contradiction).

astrange 3y ago
People like that often don't get arrested. At most the Secret Service will take note and make them stay home if there's a VIP anywhere nearby. There's lots of crazy people and we don't keep them in prisons anymore.
- immibis 3y ago
  It's not very free if you can get confined to your house for saying it.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> Please, go to your local town square and hand out flyers about your plot to assassinate the President. Report back with your results. Ah, lol. I thought you might try something like this. Yes, there are some exceptions, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater, but they generally don't count. They are not restrictions on anything you actually want to say or communicate, they are restrictions on causing a riot or disturbance. The difference is in the US you can actually say anything you want to say to communicate any opinion or information you want. That isn't true in most other first world countries. Just look at people getting arrested for protesting Charles' coronation in the UK, people all over Australia, NZ, Europe etc being arrested in pro Palestine (NOT pro Hamas) protests, people being arrested or facing legal issues for giving an opinion on something COVID related in countries other than the US..etc etc etc. > Oh, and I can predict your reply. Well, you made a disingenuous argument and were well aware that you did, so that isn't entirely surprising. However, I clarified the claim making that tired old fallacious response entirely irrelevant.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Ideological purity may wish otherwise, but there’s a meta-layer here: there are inevitable limits to “free speech” when said speech genuinely threatens the institution that otherwise allows free speech. You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. You are not free to share speech that’s been deemed classified. You are not free to conspire with foreign enemies. etc. While the US does protect many forms of forms of political speech that are deemed impotent or that advocate radical position within the rubric of its institutions, it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. Because that's not speech, as in an opinion. It's a call to action. But you can speak all day long about how the president is useless and should be replaced. People in the UK couldn't even protest the coronation of Charles without facing arrest. > it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies). Simply not true. People get arrested for speech in other first world countries that would not happen in the US. > It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all. It very much is.
    - immibis 3y ago
      Calls to action are speech. When I open my mouth and words come out of it, that is speech. When I punch you in the face, that is not speech. When I tell someone else to punch you in the face, that is speech. When he punches you, that is not speech. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. If I'm not free to tell someone to punch you in the face, then I don't have absolute free speech.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > Calls to action are speech. Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous. Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt at making a point to begin with. Instead of saying 'freedom of speech', since you want to be so technical, we can say 'freedom to express any opinion'. The USA has significantly more freedom for people to 'express any opinion' than other first world countries. > I don't know how much simpler I can make it. You're not making anything 'simple', you're making a disingenuous point to try and support an even more, forgive me, asinine point that isn't really correct except in a meaningless semantic way. You're ignoring the spirit of what is being discussed and acting like you've refuted a claim; you haven't even come close. Why don't you actually try and address the claim made instead of playing silly semantic games in lieu of an argument?