5 ms·

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. That made me cringe. A lot. My first

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. That made me cringe. A lot. My first-world western country doesn't live up to your "standards" of freedom of speech because we have different standards. We value speech differently.

CamperBob2 14y ago
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. Whatever else you can say about the US, our First Amendment is rightfully the envy of the world.
- nsns 14y ago
  And your Second its cause for constant anxiety.
  - csense 14y ago
    Your anxiety is misplaced. I've lived in the US my entire life and I've never witnessed a crime involving firearms. If gunpowder had just been invented, and guns only existed in the hands of a few companies, scientists, and inventors, then gun control might work. But since the USA was originally (from Europe's viewpoint) a vast, wild frontier, guns have been very common throughout the USA for all of its history. Pretend that firearms were magically outlawed in the US tomorrow. But there are millions already in circulation. So people who are determined to get a gun, aren't concerned about following the law, and are willing and able to pay, would certainly still have access to the weapons. A firearm ban would only punish conscientious, law-abiding citizens who want firearms because they're a fun hobby, or to protect their families from armed criminals. And then there's the other reason for the Second Amendment: Revolution is the final defense against tyranny. Power corrupts, and the people who started the USA were under no illusions that the government they created was perfect and would remain so forever. If a future US government somehow manages to undo all the Constitutional safeguards and exercise unchecked power, or finds some clever way to be really crappy to the citizens while remaining within the letter of the law and the Constitution, the people can always withdraw their consent to be governed, and, being armed, can have a decent chance of winning. Remember that the Second Amendment was approved not long after the USA's independence from Great Britain, and its authors had personal experience with armed revolution against an oppressive government. Many people who are unfamiliar with firearms tend to have a visceral reaction: They're scary and bad. Think about how many people who are unfamiliar with computers tend to have a similar reaction. Try to move past your prejudice and try to find reasons for your beliefs. If you can, great -- let's have a debate! If you can't, please spend 30 minutes thinking about your worldview; try to make it logical and consistent by changing beliefs and/or thinking up new lines of reasoning.
    - tommorris 14y ago
      "Revolution is the final defense against tyranny. Power corrupts, and the people who started the USA were under no illusions that the government they created was perfect and would remain so forever." And how exactly are a bunch of citizens with handguns and shotguns going to stand up against the US military? While the NRA crowd are all polishing their pistols and claiming they'll be able to start American Revolution 2.0 if necessary, the US military have nuclear bombs, bioweapons, tanks, more fighter jets than you can ever imagine, drones, and a few nuclear armed submarines they can have pootling up and down the Mississippi.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        And how exactly are a bunch of citizens with handguns and shotguns going to stand up against the US military? Gee, I dunno, why don't you ask the Viet Cong, where a bunch of citizens used a skillful blend of politics and home court advantage to win against everything the US military could throw at them? Or the Mahdi Army, which made the Iraq occupation untenable with weapons that could be improvised with materials found in any Home Depot? Or Al Qaeda, where a tiny handful of fighters rope-a-doped us into trillions of dollars in losses and thousands of casualties with absolutely nothing to show for either? All of the weapons you mention exist at the tip of a very long, meandering spear. They all depend on a brittle logistics chain that is no stronger than its weakest link. Any attempt to use any of those weapons against US citizens would end very badly for the military or political leaders behind it. That's not something that can be said about most countries, and our Second Amendment is a key reason why it's true here.
    - mylittlepony 14y ago
      Then why don't you stand up and recover your right to not being detained indefinitely without a fair trial, your right to move freely around the country without being asked for ID, your right to privacy, to mention a few? All those rights have been taken away by the government and you did nothing.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  You have to get out more, you'll be surprised what people outside the US think.
- tomflack 14y ago
  I don't envy it. Nor fear it. Nor hate it. That's an extremely arrogant statement you just made.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    See my reply to the other person who just called me "arrogant." You're on shaky ground when it comes to that particular accusation.
    - tomflack 14y ago
      Why don't you make it to me directly.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- petercooper 14y ago
  As words, sure, it's great. But since it conveniently doesn't apply from time to time at the government's whim, it's just that: words.
csense 14y ago
> We value speech differently. Yes, we do. Even ideas that most of us find distasteful should be spoken freely. Yes, this means that we can't jail fringe nutcases who bombard the rest of us with speech that is tasteless, racist, homophobic, obscene, dogmatic, or un-patriotic. (But no law requires anyone to be friends with such people, either.) But occasionally, the fringe loonies are right. Today most people will agree: Women should have the right to vote. The color of your skin shouldn't decide your destiny in life. Slavery did need to end. If valuable ideas like these can't be suppressed by the government, they can spread throughout our society and eventually change things for the better. And we can criticize our government openly. As an American, I can say that the war in Afghanistan needs to end, the war in Iraq never should have begun, Obamacare is stupid, President Obama is stupid, taxes are too high, my Senator's incompetent...(I don't actually believe all of these things; they're just random examples of criticisms of government.) This is perhaps the most important part of free speech, and according to the article, the UK lacks these protections. Free speech protections in the UK aren't as good as the US, but I fully realize that it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of places. In many countries, openly criticizing one's rulers like this would lead to jailing, execution or "disappearance" -- not just of the person, but possibly their family and known associates as well, regardless of their guilt or innocence. (I'm speaking of moral guilt. In authoritarian regimes, when a person's arrested, it virtually guarantees they'll be guilty as far as that country's laws are concerned.)
- tomflack 14y ago
  My country had women's suffrage before yours. My country had a great transformation from a primarily racist white society to one where all have equal rights. I too can openly criticize my government and people aren't disappeared off the streets. I won't be saying which country I'm talking about as it is irrelevant. Everything in social justice the United States has achieved my country also has, with our different free speech values. I don't presume to say one is better or worse, but I do consider it totally arrogant the attitude Americans display when talking down about other country's free speech values. Which are different. Not necessarily worse.
  - csense 14y ago

CamperBob2 14y ago

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. Whatever else you can say about the US, our First Amendment is rightfully the envy of the world.

nsns 14y ago
And your Second its cause for constant anxiety.
- csense 14y ago
  Your anxiety is misplaced. I've lived in the US my entire life and I've never witnessed a crime involving firearms. If gunpowder had just been invented, and guns only existed in the hands of a few companies, scientists, and inventors, then gun control might work. But since the USA was originally (from Europe's viewpoint) a vast, wild frontier, guns have been very common throughout the USA for all of its history. Pretend that firearms were magically outlawed in the US tomorrow. But there are millions already in circulation. So people who are determined to get a gun, aren't concerned about following the law, and are willing and able to pay, would certainly still have access to the weapons. A firearm ban would only punish conscientious, law-abiding citizens who want firearms because they're a fun hobby, or to protect their families from armed criminals. And then there's the other reason for the Second Amendment: Revolution is the final defense against tyranny. Power corrupts, and the people who started the USA were under no illusions that the government they created was perfect and would remain so forever. If a future US government somehow manages to undo all the Constitutional safeguards and exercise unchecked power, or finds some clever way to be really crappy to the citizens while remaining within the letter of the law and the Constitution, the people can always withdraw their consent to be governed, and, being armed, can have a decent chance of winning. Remember that the Second Amendment was approved not long after the USA's independence from Great Britain, and its authors had personal experience with armed revolution against an oppressive government. Many people who are unfamiliar with firearms tend to have a visceral reaction: They're scary and bad. Think about how many people who are unfamiliar with computers tend to have a similar reaction. Try to move past your prejudice and try to find reasons for your beliefs. If you can, great -- let's have a debate! If you can't, please spend 30 minutes thinking about your worldview; try to make it logical and consistent by changing beliefs and/or thinking up new lines of reasoning.
  - tommorris 14y ago
    "Revolution is the final defense against tyranny. Power corrupts, and the people who started the USA were under no illusions that the government they created was perfect and would remain so forever." And how exactly are a bunch of citizens with handguns and shotguns going to stand up against the US military? While the NRA crowd are all polishing their pistols and claiming they'll be able to start American Revolution 2.0 if necessary, the US military have nuclear bombs, bioweapons, tanks, more fighter jets than you can ever imagine, drones, and a few nuclear armed submarines they can have pootling up and down the Mississippi.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      And how exactly are a bunch of citizens with handguns and shotguns going to stand up against the US military? Gee, I dunno, why don't you ask the Viet Cong, where a bunch of citizens used a skillful blend of politics and home court advantage to win against everything the US military could throw at them? Or the Mahdi Army, which made the Iraq occupation untenable with weapons that could be improvised with materials found in any Home Depot? Or Al Qaeda, where a tiny handful of fighters rope-a-doped us into trillions of dollars in losses and thousands of casualties with absolutely nothing to show for either? All of the weapons you mention exist at the tip of a very long, meandering spear. They all depend on a brittle logistics chain that is no stronger than its weakest link. Any attempt to use any of those weapons against US citizens would end very badly for the military or political leaders behind it. That's not something that can be said about most countries, and our Second Amendment is a key reason why it's true here.
  - mylittlepony 14y ago
    Then why don't you stand up and recover your right to not being detained indefinitely without a fair trial, your right to move freely around the country without being asked for ID, your right to privacy, to mention a few? All those rights have been taken away by the government and you did nothing.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
mylittlepony 14y ago
You have to get out more, you'll be surprised what people outside the US think.
tomflack 14y ago
I don't envy it. Nor fear it. Nor hate it. That's an extremely arrogant statement you just made.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  See my reply to the other person who just called me "arrogant." You're on shaky ground when it comes to that particular accusation.
  - tomflack 14y ago
    Why don't you make it to me directly.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
petercooper 14y ago
As words, sure, it's great. But since it conveniently doesn't apply from time to time at the government's whim, it's just that: words.

csense 14y ago

> We value speech differently. Yes, we do. Even ideas that most of us find distasteful should be spoken freely. Yes, this means that we can't jail fringe nutcases who bombard the rest of us with speech that is tasteless, racist, homophobic, obscene, dogmatic, or un-patriotic. (But no law requires anyone to be friends with such people, either.) But occasionally, the fringe loonies are right. Today most people will agree: Women should have the right to vote. The color of your skin shouldn't decide your destiny in life. Slavery did need to end. If valuable ideas like these can't be suppressed by the government, they can spread throughout our society and eventually change things for the better. And we can criticize our government openly. As an American, I can say that the war in Afghanistan needs to end, the war in Iraq never should have begun, Obamacare is stupid, President Obama is stupid, taxes are too high, my Senator's incompetent...(I don't actually believe all of these things; they're just random examples of criticisms of government.) This is perhaps the most important part of free speech, and according to the article, the UK lacks these protections. Free speech protections in the UK aren't as good as the US, but I fully realize that it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of places. In many countries, openly criticizing one's rulers like this would lead to jailing, execution or "disappearance" -- not just of the person, but possibly their family and known associates as well, regardless of their guilt or innocence. (I'm speaking of moral guilt. In authoritarian regimes, when a person's arrested, it virtually guarantees they'll be guilty as far as that country's laws are concerned.)

tomflack 14y ago
My country had women's suffrage before yours. My country had a great transformation from a primarily racist white society to one where all have equal rights. I too can openly criticize my government and people aren't disappeared off the streets. I won't be saying which country I'm talking about as it is irrelevant. Everything in social justice the United States has achieved my country also has, with our different free speech values. I don't presume to say one is better or worse, but I do consider it totally arrogant the attitude Americans display when talking down about other country's free speech values. Which are different. Not necessarily worse.
- csense 14y ago