USA vs Europe (whose free speech is more free)

Originally posted by mike brown
No it's the fact I tried asking you additional questions about that finding which you ignored and then cited it to me again.. at which point I pointed out I already tried responding to that point which you then ignored again and continue to make the same point over and over again with no follow up. So I can only assume you know nothing about the findings and just read one article which you want to quote to me again and again instead of having an actual discussion

My question was actually what metrics did they use to determine how free the press was... I.e. what do they mean specifically by saying our press is less free

Originally posted by mike brown
My question was actually what metrics did they use to determine how free the press was... I.e. what do they mean specifically by saying our press is less free

https://www.google.com.sa/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj0m8SugNbgAhUDx4UKHVkLAZkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fcountries-most-freedom-in-the-world-2018-4&psig=AOvVaw1Gw6uErGN8Ln1kdroqhxMt&ust=1551153807003451

Here's another that doesn't.

Off to work mate, if I get a chance I'll look for the criteria.

One final thought on Freedom, freedom of speech can undermine freedom of expression and vice versa, I think this is where extreme freedom of speech advocates become bigotry enablers. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That Bada's statement...

wasn't correct.

I agree that his statement is incorrect. I would never make a statement like that. Bada is not a dumbass. I think he just "misspoke" his thoughts. He's definitely aware that things like screaming "FIRE!" in a theater are not protected speech.

https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Woman-says-she-was-arrested-and-jailed-for-commenting-on-a-Facebook-post-476317393.html

https://fox59.com/2016/07/05/man-charged-with-desecrating-american-flag-after-posting-photos-on-facebook/

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
There's probably more freedom around censorship and obscenity in some European countries than the US. Likely some with less stringent libel and defamation laws. Some have better protections for freedom of the press.

I remember reading about history stuff in college and it went into details about how we (our ancestors) f*cked the shit out of each other right in plain site of families including grandparents, children, siblings, etc.

That's awkward as hell. I would never ever want to see my parents do something like that. But, apparently, for most of human history, other than the very rich, f*cking the shit out of each other in front of familial audiences is what we have done. Only recently, due to puritanical and Victorian morality movements, have we made it a private thing.

Kind of thankful for that...

But the US leans a significantly closer to the Victorian prudishness than most European countries, for sure.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Woman-says-she-was-arrested-and-jailed-for-commenting-on-a-Facebook-post-476317393.html

He wasn't arrested under free speech violations. Taxes vs. Johnson (most generic supreme court case name in history) allows for people to burn the flag in protest of anything government.

It's the location he chose to burn the flag on. If you'll notice in the article, they had to consult the damn attorney general before making the arrest because it was so dubious.

This case is not iffy like the anti-police one. Fairly simple.

Burn flags or anything on private property. And only if there are no safety burn-bans in place.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's mainly the attacks by politicians on facts as fake news. Through the law and the mob. Mob rule, flies in the face of your first ammendment and undermines the rule of law.

By "mob rule" I assume you are referring to people (yes most often right-wing nut jobs from places like /pol/ or /r/The_Donald) insulting the writers?

Regardless, I would disagree that that in anyway infringes upon the freedom of the press. After all, it's merely a bunch of man-babies throwing a hissy-fit online. In fact, to say they they can't express their opinions would be the real infringement upon the First Amendment.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I remember reading about history stuff in college and it went into details about how we (our ancestors) f*cked the shit out of each other right in plain site of families including grandparents, children, siblings, etc.

That's awkward as hell. I would never ever want to see my parents do something like that. But, apparently, for most of human history, other than the very rich, f*cking the shit out of each other in front of familial audiences is what we have done. Only recently, due to puritanical and Victorian morality movements, have we made it a private thing.

Kind of thankful for that...

But the US leans a significantly closer to the Victorian prudishness than most European countries, for sure.

Plus there's the US aversion to the word ¢unt.

YouTube video
Which we don't really have over here.

Haha, to be fair yanks struggle with "moist" pussies, comma omitted between moist and pussy for additional humour.

Moist ¢unt, you mean. 😁

Originally posted by Putinbot1
One final thought on Freedom, freedom of speech can undermine freedom of expression and vice versa, I think this is where extreme freedom of speech advocates become bigotry enablers. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by mike brown
thinking about it more, I have the opposite inclination to you over hate speech, unless it is inciting violence, but I actually also don't like the fcc and some of the more prudish aspects of American society vs Europe (I'm generalizing for simplicity). So I can see pros and cons on both sides...I just think the US seems better at protecting citizens from State censorship directly over things that verge on so called hate speech. And thankfully cable TV is dwindling in it's dominance and people are gravitating to more uncensored media like Netflix, online platforms, etc.

People are adversely affected in various ways by all sorts of speech. That isn't a good reason to ban the speech. The exceptions we make are extreme examples where violence is incited or people are being falsely accused of crimes etc. These sorts of things undermine basic law and order and thus can't be allowed for pragmatic purposes. But banning the use of stereotypes is a completely Orwellian idea that borders on thoughtcrime.

Originally posted by mike brown
People are adversely affected in various ways by all sorts of speech. That isn't a good reason to ban the speech. The exceptions we make are extreme examples where violence is incited or people are being falsely accused of crimes etc. These sorts of things undermine basic law and order and thus can't be allowed for pragmatic purposes. But banning the use of stereotypes is a completely Orwellian idea that borders on thoughtcrime.

You would have to be more specific by what you mean by intimidation. As I said you aren't allowed to threaten or blackmail people here either.

Originally posted by mike brown
You would have to be more specific by what you mean by intimidation. As I said you aren't allowed to threaten or blackmail people here either.

It always starts with language.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_stages_of_genocide

We certainly have plenty of historical issues of our own to deal with. But still I can't help but note the language you're using here is rather vague. "Causing people to feel marginalized?" How about a specific example?