Comment by rafram
4 days ago
The baseline level of freedom of speech in the EU, in particular, is much, much worse than in the US. We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws! Completely unthinkable for Americans.
4 days ago
The baseline level of freedom of speech in the EU, in particular, is much, much worse than in the US. We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws! Completely unthinkable for Americans.
The US is at position 57 in the world free speech index. Virtually all EU countries do better and a bunch are top 10:
https://rsf.org/en/index
American exceptionalism doesn’t seem to know boundaries.
You linked to a site about press freedom, which is a subset of free speech and not generally what Americans are talking about when they talk about freedom of speech.
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
that does not imply one being the subset of the other to me, if anything they are clearly defined and therefore clearly separate.
Trump refuses to answer simple questions and attacks and mocks reporters, that's if they're lucky and he doesn't directly sue them for millions/billions. Hell, the white house banned Associated Press. Is that free speech or freedom of the press?
1 reply →
It's worth reading the specific actions they cite that lower the US's ranking. They include the closure of Voice of America, a government-run propaganda outlet for foreign audiences (and I do think that closure is bad! just not relevant at all to free speech); mergers of several big media conglomerates; not to mention, bafflingly, restrictions on journalism by the Iranian government in Iran, which somehow counts against the US.
None of this says anything about Americans' right to speak freely, which is absolute, unlike in any European country.
Can you quote it? Did not see any of those things you are mentioning.
https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
But their free speech protects bribing the politicians with campaign donations. It's true that we don't have such advanced laws over here.
Given the last year, it doesn't seem like any level of suppression of freedom is in fact unthinkable for Americans.
I would argue that if protesters against Israels politics are persecuted, detained or even deported, the baseline of free speech has crumbled significantly.
Boiling down the different approaches to freedom of speech to "The baseline level is higher/lower", has always been a pretty simplistic (and if you would actually delve into the topic a little, flat out wrong) view .
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Neither in Europe nor in the US. Both effectively have rules restricting certain speech. For example, speech that may harm others, such as inciting violence or maybe the most famous example: "Shouting FIRE in a full venue".
European countries tend to spell out these restrictions more explicitly. It's completely reasonable to disagree with these restrictions. But the simple existence of them shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that one is "more freedom of speech" than the other.
And at last I want to add, that that is how it's been historically. Sadly, the recent developments in US show pretty well how freedom of speech cannot be measured by "How many specific laws are there about things I cannot say?".
> Shouting FIRE in a full venue
"Crowded theater"? In any case, yes, that's a popular understanding of limits on free speech in the US, but it's actually been superseded twice - first by "clear and present danger," then by "inciting or producing imminent lawless action." These days, it's probably (I am not a lawyer) legal to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater under many circumstances.
> Sadly, the recent developments in US show pretty well how freedom of speech cannot be measured by "How many specific laws are there about things I cannot say?".
There are no laws preventing you from saying anything in the US, unless you are specifically, directly inciting people, at that moment, to do things that break other laws. That's the point. You can't measure it in terms of degrees of restrictions; the US has none, and all European countries have at least some. The latter approach opens the floodgates to restrictions on any kind of speech that the government doesn't like. The US Constitution prevents that from ever happening.
> There are no laws preventing you from saying anything in the US, unless...
Sounds like there are some of those laws. You covered them with "unless"
2 replies →
>For example, speech that may harm others, such as inciting violence or maybe the most famous example: "Shouting FIRE in a full venue".
Perhaps a misquote from 1919 wartime supreme court decision involving an anti-draft activist isn't a great example? Even when correctly quoted, this quote is utterly meaningless in 2026.
>Freedom of speech is not absolute
Nobody ever claims it is? That's literally never in dispute, fraud (for example) is illegal everywhere.
> Perhaps a misquote from 1919 wartime supreme court decision involving an anti-draft activist isn't a great example? Even when correctly quoted, this quote is utterly meaningless in 2026.
I was not actually quoting any specific American case law but referring to the general legal concept. But even if I had referred to it specifically, it would not be meaningless. If I understand correctly, the US has overturned that specific case, but to my understanding the legal concept behind it remains in effect. But I see how my use of quotes and the choice of words "most famous example" was confusing here. I was not aware that there is this specific US case where the "Fire in a theater" phrase originates from and was talking about the general concept of purposefully causing a panic in a crowded space.
>Freedom of speech is not absolute
> Nobody ever claims it is? That's literally never in dispute, fraud (for example) is illegal everywhere.
I never claimed that anyone claimed that.
I thought that the preceding statement was too simplistic for a complex topic and tried to offer a more differentiated explanation. Why are you upset that I started that explanation with a statement that you agree is true?
> freedom of speech
Oh please. There's free speech without a free press (US ranks 57/190, behind Sierra Leone) people are just amplifying the same BS they heard from some ignorant influencer. I would argue even your idea of "active enforced blasphemy laws" shows that. That's worse than useless, that is detrimental to a society (case in point, the current president and his whole cabinet).
https://rsf.org/en/index
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492709
> We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws
In a very narrow interpretation, yes. Everyone with a modicum of common sense would realise that countries with laws on the books against offending religions / inciting hatred against them are still more free than a country where the fucking Bible is cited in court rulings and political speeches, and where there are active laws prohibiting non-religious people from holding office.
One is for keeping the peace, the other is actively meddling religion and politics.
> baseline level of freedom of speech
Being unable to spout Nazi ideology is technically a restriction on freedom of speech, yes. But again, anyone with a modicum of common sense (and a bit of historical understanding) would understand this to be a good thing.
The far right is ascendant in Europe; obviously restrictions on speech haven't prevented that. I am Jewish, I have a strong dislike of Nazis, and yet I think Nazis legally being able to "spout Nazi ideology" is a healthy thing for our society. Criminalizing speech doesn't stop people from holding abhorrent beliefs.
This is an aspect of our country that I think most Americans are proud of. Some relevant reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
My fucking god the American exceptionalism arrogance runs strong.
1 reply →
> yet I think Nazis legally being able to "spout Nazi ideology" is a healthy thing for our society
How did that end last time? We know where it ends, we know there's nothing redeeming. Nobody needs Nazis, there is nothing to be gained by engaging with them or giving them a platform.
2 replies →
[flagged]
Is it not true that when entering the US you are required to show all your social media content on request, and if there is anything negative about the current administration, you can be denied entry (if you are lucky, and not detained for an indefinite amount of time)?
Truly exceptional indeed. You are basically on par with China.
Do they really do that and what do they do when you say you don't have one? Do they believe you or not having one is as suspicious as having one with the content they don't like?
1 reply →
FWIW, you don't have to do any of that to enter China.
3 replies →
The EU is really more middle-of-the-road in most things, while the US tends to be more extreme: more really good ideas, but also more really bad ideas. But that is also the result of the EU being largely controlled by bureaucrats and compliance officers instead of real leaders.
Yeah. Try to enter US as EU citizen and see how good it is. Immigration officers are in bad mood (to say lightly).
FYI American exceptionalism is stuff like having, bar none, the worst school shooting rate in the world, and by far the highest murder rate in a developed country, and stating that what everyone else is doing wouldn't apply to the US. Or designing cities wrong and saying that everyone else doing better by any imaginable metric wouldn't apply to the US.