← Back to context

Comment by like_any_other

1 day ago

The US is just following the European example of "responsibly" moderating speech [1], instead of blindly sticking to the 1st amendment, as they were so often called to [2].

[1] https://www.gbnews.com/news/renaud-camus-banned-migration-vi...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-eu...

Yes, I would expect the government to blindly stick to the founding document of the country. I would also expect the government to go through the amendment process to change that document if it was found wanting given changes in society over time.

  • It’s far easier to pay lip service to the document while doing whatever you want. This is common with authoritarian regimes. From the PRC’s constitution:

    > Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Does that say Camus had his phone seized? He was denied being allowed to come and speak, not to visit as a journalist, which also strikes me a fairly different case (whatever you think of his positions, or whether they should be debated or silenced). It seems unlikely to me that a journalist who'd written flattering things about the AFD would be treated so badly trying to visit Germany?