I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. What

I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.