I want to challenge you from the other side on this. Americans should not be self-satisfied with the rudimentary level of free speech they have from the first amendment. In practice people are afraid to express good faith disagreement with the ruling ideology in fear of being socially ostracized and losing their job.
Free speech is an interesting topic, it's not an absolute good and the full version is not actually desirable.
I would argue free speech is much more preferred as a citizen of one of these countries as too many are walking around convinced their understanding of facts is truth when it is in truth not.
Free speech is a necessity learned from the past horrors of fascism.
Fascism is literally being empowered today by unrestricted free speech in Western societies - something Western "liberal" politicians are constantly shouting from the rooftops. Nazism took root in the Weimar Republic essentially unmolested. The Germans censor Holocaust denial today. And you're telling me the lesson learned from all this is the virtue of free speech?
That doesn't really fit with my experience in Canada, especially given that Canadian law has robust freedom of expression provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms.
I don't want to start a shouting match and have to prove my case for every country but this is from Wikipedia.
"Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition."
That isn't evidence that Canada barely considers free speach "good in and of itself."
Different countries have different rules and restrictions on free speech and every country has some. If you setup a framework for comparison, you can rank them, but this doesn't always end up with the USA on top and often it's not even in the top 10. Canada often ranks over the USA.
Your assertion is thus pretty clearly not true by the best objective measures we have.
Free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech. In the US you are not free to defraud, slander, physically endanger, etc. And everywhere, in everything, there are failures and imperfections.
> The concept of free speech as a value that is good in and of itself is something that barely exists outside of the USA.
That's demonstrably false; rights like free speech are enshrined in societies all over the world. Other countries don't have a First Amendment, but they have free speech, free press, etc.
don't be disingenuous. You know perfectly well what was meant. We are talking about free speech _absolutism_, an extremist viewpoint with the most traction in the United States.
No, that meaning is absolutely not clear in any of what you've written.
In my experience, "free speech absolutism" is more of a siboleth than an actually meaningful label. I've yet to encounter anyone who actually believes that there should never be any limits on speech.
So your argument is "other countries don't care about free speech, America should be more like other countries? This is a bizarre take, I was with you up until the last word.
I want to challenge you from the other side on this. Americans should not be self-satisfied with the rudimentary level of free speech they have from the first amendment. In practice people are afraid to express good faith disagreement with the ruling ideology in fear of being socially ostracized and losing their job.
Free speech is an interesting topic, it's not an absolute good and the full version is not actually desirable.
I would argue free speech is much more preferred as a citizen of one of these countries as too many are walking around convinced their understanding of facts is truth when it is in truth not.
Free speech is a necessity learned from the past horrors of fascism.
Fascism is literally being empowered today by unrestricted free speech in Western societies - something Western "liberal" politicians are constantly shouting from the rooftops. Nazism took root in the Weimar Republic essentially unmolested. The Germans censor Holocaust denial today. And you're telling me the lesson learned from all this is the virtue of free speech?
[dead]
That doesn't really fit with my experience in Canada, especially given that Canadian law has robust freedom of expression provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...
I don't want to start a shouting match and have to prove my case for every country but this is from Wikipedia.
"Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition."
That isn't evidence that Canada barely considers free speach "good in and of itself."
Different countries have different rules and restrictions on free speech and every country has some. If you setup a framework for comparison, you can rank them, but this doesn't always end up with the USA on top and often it's not even in the top 10. Canada often ranks over the USA.
Your assertion is thus pretty clearly not true by the best objective measures we have.
2 replies →
Free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech. In the US you are not free to defraud, slander, physically endanger, etc. And everywhere, in everything, there are failures and imperfections.
13 replies →
[dead]
> The concept of free speech as a value that is good in and of itself is something that barely exists outside of the USA.
That's demonstrably false; rights like free speech are enshrined in societies all over the world. Other countries don't have a First Amendment, but they have free speech, free press, etc.
don't be disingenuous. You know perfectly well what was meant. We are talking about free speech _absolutism_, an extremist viewpoint with the most traction in the United States.
No, that meaning is absolutely not clear in any of what you've written.
In my experience, "free speech absolutism" is more of a siboleth than an actually meaningful label. I've yet to encounter anyone who actually believes that there should never be any limits on speech.
I won't be disingenous if you will be curious and give people the benefit of the doubt. Deal?
So your argument is "other countries don't care about free speech, America should be more like other countries? This is a bizarre take, I was with you up until the last word.
No, I am firmly in the free-speech camp. Which is why 'truth' is in quotes...
Maybe they're afraid to be honest about which they prefer?
[dead]