Comment by scrollop

Same in France, many things are forbidden to say, most of time censored, sometimes even punished (either socially or by the law). US is way way way more advanced in terms of freedom.

You are allowed to say there is censorship but not allowed to say what is forbidden (and you are not allowed to criticize some laws, without breaking the law). You can really go to jail or have your life ruined, or your business burned because of a TikTok video.

This censorship benefits a lot of bad people, but naming them is a crime by itself.

For example, in France, there is no insecurity in the streets. If you say the opposite and start naming examples, you will get shamed or even physically attacked by some people and be prosecuted for “spreading hate” and other crimes whereas your attackers will have zero issues.

This phenomenon is known as “juges rouges” (the red judges), somewhat similar to USSR

You can write to several climate activists in prison if you would like first hand accounts. I means ones who held up placards, rather than the ones that climbed onto trains or glued themselves to roads.

Just weeks ago a couple of pop bands got hauled in front of judges or had police investigations aimed at them for voicing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. (Ok, so they used incediary language, but they’re 20-somethings at festivals and the Gaza situation is abhorrent).

Fairly recently, an activist group which uses tactics reminiscent of the anti-nuclear-proliferation movement and animal rights movements of the 70s-90s got proscribed a terrorist organisation. At present, the law around this and recent implementations of its enforcement are such that I can’t tell if I’ll be arrested for writing this paragraph. I’ve tried to stick to the facts, but interpretation can get you locked up.

Communications Act 2003

  Section 127(1) makes it an offence to:
  "Send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is a -
  (a) grossly offensive,
  (b) indecent, obscene, or menacing, or
  (c) false, known to be false, for causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety."

  Section 127(2) adds that: "A person is also guilty of an offence if they cause a message or other matter to be sent that is similarly offensive or menancing.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

You can be caged on a whim.

In the U.K. people can be prosecuted for speech found to be offensive.

There have been several high profile cases used as examples, like the guy who was convicted for making a video of his girlfriend’s dog pretending to do a Nazi salute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

Doing anything considered “grossly offensive” online can result in the police knocking on your door and financial penalties. It’s a foreign concept if you’re in a country where making jokes online doesn’t constitute a risk to your freedoms and finances (which is more than just the U.S.)

Do I really need to?

An Atheist who burnt a Quran in Yookay and got stabbed by a muslim as a result (proving his point?) got a 325£ fine for "religiously motivated public disorder” whatever that means.

Peter Tatchell got arested by the police for holding a sign with "STOP Israel genocide! STOP Hamas executions! Odai Al-Rubai, aged 22, executed by Hamas! RIP!" because of "breach of peace" whatever that means.

During the recent riots in Yookay, a man was jailed for 20 months for "shooting at a dog", and "using racist slur". While it's sure distasteful, it's no different than Putin's technique of protest repression.

I could go on with Germany, where sharing benign memes about politicians lead you to get swatted and your house searched, the Yookay with its "non crime hate incidents" that require no proof, France and its extensive hate speech laws that prevent asking to boycott another state, Finland where burning the Bible is ok, but not the Quran, and so on.