Wherever people like you and me are willing step up and actually fight. A "free society" is not some intrinsic property; we get to have a free society - and a democratically elected government - if and only if we defend it.
Patrick Stewart has a great line at the end of TNG 4x21 "The Drumhead"[1]
[V]illains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot.
Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
...
[Admiral Satie] or someone like her will always be with us,
waiting for the right climate in which to flourish – spreading fear
in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mr. Worf. That is the price
we have to continually pay.
Any system will eventually fail if it isn't maintained. When we allow small, trivial abuses of power, people become conditioned to expect exceptions to the rule of law. These exceptions are normalized into a power structure that deviates significantly from anything resembling a free society.
To my knowledge, the Nordic countries and Switzerland have criminalized hate speech, including speech that might be found insulting by one of several protected classes.
In the U.S., hate speech is legal unless it will immediately lead to violence or a criminal act--the so-called "fighting words".
So, distasteful as hateful speech is, there is an example of how the U.S. protects a free society.
The press is owned by the state, making the freedom of the press a little difficult.
Because of the high taxes and plentiful regulations, your only options for employment are huge corporations or government.
Hardly what I call freedom.
Switzerland, on the other hand, is more free. Mostly because the majority of citizens have some wealth.
Many people associate more government programs and freebies with freedom. In reality, it only creates dependent groups of people and gives more control and power to the government. The exact opposite of freedom.
The government doesn't own "the press" in Nordic countries.
In Sweden, there are a couple of TV channels (SVT) and a few radio channels (SR) which are run according to the "public service" model.
The existence of SVT/SR is protected by the constitution and they are funded by a kind of flat tax on media receivers while still managed independently of the government (the majority coalition has no direct power over public service).
Anyone familiar with SVT/SR or the public service model understands that they aren't "state media" in an authoritarian sense, most obviously because there is a plurality of commercial channels too.
There is no state press whatsoever, and the existing commercial papers are mostly center-right liberal, except for the venerable social democratic Aftonbladet.
I work at a small startup in Stockholm so I'm existence proof that there are options other than huge corporations or the state....
Of course there are problems, but your criticism seems misinformed and exaggerated.
Not sure what you mean -- it's hard to think of a concept less relative than this thing called "freedom", actually. Especially as people (particularly across different cultures) tend to have wildly different conceptions as to what "freedom" really is.
Patrick Stewart has a great line at the end of TNG 4x21 "The Drumhead"[1]
Any system will eventually fail if it isn't maintained. When we allow small, trivial abuses of power, people become conditioned to expect exceptions to the rule of law. These exceptions are normalized into a power structure that deviates significantly from anything resembling a free society.[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eahs1H9tdcU