[cryptarch]

How do you define "extreme end"?

The US isn't doing great in the Press Freedom Index[0]. Norway, or my home country the Netherlands, would IMO be much better examples of "extreme freedom of speech". I'd say the US is strong on this point, but not at the extremes.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

[jquery]

Is The Netherlands the same country who put a top national candidate on trial for politically incorrect views? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/14...

I guess I'd define "extreme end" as a country that doesn't threaten jail time for wrongthink.

[SamReidHughes]

The Press Freedom Index is complete bullshit. A bunch of made-up formulas like this one: https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/formule1_1.png

In the Netherlands you prosecuted Geert Wilders!!! Some press outfits from the U.S.A. would be prosecuted left and right.

[cryptarch]

Do you have a good alternative to the Freedom of Press Index?

On the Geert Wilders issue: it is a lot more nuanced than how you present it. The quote Geert Wilders prosecuted for (translation mine):

"In this city and the Netherlands, do you want more or fewer Moroccans?"

the crowd starts chanting 'fewer'

"Then we're going to take care of that!"

This was not just a casual remark, as the judge determined that it was a scripted section of a speech meant to evoke that particular reaction from the crowd. The charges were "inciting hate", "inciting discrimination" and "criminal insult of and inciting discrimination of a group", the group being the Moroccan race (race as defined by Dutch law)[0].

The first charge was dismissed, but he was convicted of the latter; the judge decided to give no penalty because he considered the public conviction enough in the case of a public figure. The maximum penalty he could have received was two years in jail, though that would have been highly irregular; a fine is generally used.

Personally, I think Geert Wilders adds little of value. He consequently refuses to set (literally) any concrete goals for his party and only runs on populism.

The context matters, too. The Dutch legal system works very differently from the American system. Jurisprudence and the letter of the law are used, but the principle of arriving at a reasonable, proportional and good faith judgement is weighed very heavily when compared to the American system.

Our prison situation is that prisons are closing. We have 9,145[2] prisoners as of September 2016, out of a population of 16,979,120[3].

[0]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweede_zaak-Geert_Wilders [1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redelijkheid_en_billijkheid [2]: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=... [3]: http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37296...

[SamReidHughes]

So he was literally prosecuted for causing people to think the wrong things.

[jquery]

> Do you have a good alternative to the Freedom of Press Index?

Yeah, we call it the First Amendment.

[sigstoat]

> The US isn't doing great in the Press Freedom Index...

"... which asks questions about pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and infrastructure"

that's not the same thing as speech, in the US at least.

[Karunamon]

Why wouldn't independence and self-censorship apply? Free press as a concept is irrelevant if you never say anything controversial or are a de-facto arm of the government.

[jtuente]

Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are enumerated separately by the First Amendment.

[wfo]

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are tangentially related but very different from each other. It's very possible to have a free press but without freedom of speech (e.g. journalists can report on anything they wish, corruption, government misdeeds, culture but pornography or a specific book like say Mein Kampf is illegal, or libel/slander laws are broad enough to allow the wealthy to use the court system to punish people for speaking)

Similarly it's possible to have freedom of speech but no free press, e.g. anyone can say whatever they wish on the street and out loud but all major media organizations systematically overwhelm or crush journalistic dissent and control the media narrative as dictated by a tiny oligarchy of wealthy elites which is in some large part the case in the U.S. or by the government directly as in many other more traditional repressive countries.

[Semaphor]

I know it's not what you said, but as it's a common misconception, I'd just like to mention that Mein Kampf is not illegal in Germany but publication is (or was, might have expired by now) forbidden thanks to copyright.