[fish_fan]

First of all, I have literally never heard a critique about the negatives of american free speech. Could you help me understand the negatives?

Second, I do think americans are majorly better off than western europeans for free speech. Consider efforts to ban wearing clothing: that is not how you build a healthy, supportive, productive society, though it is perhaps how you let a culture stagnate. Or, perhaps consider this very article: it is not illegal to read something. (Possesion and distribution are another thing entirely.)

Finally, for better or worse, american free speech has plenty of bounds. Critically, those bounds are typically nowhere near politics or morals, except perhaps reflected in hate speech.

[pjc50]

Mostly, yes America is better off, although I agree with peteretp's examples that we're seeing the worst side of "freedom to lie" and "money as speech" come to fruition.

But there are all sorts of weird exceptions and the practicality of free speech has different contours. Extremely prudish but pro-violence film ratings, for example. "Ag-gag" laws (which were eventually struck down).

The free speech worst case scenario is not American but Rwandan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

[wallace_f]

>The free speech worst case scenario is not American but Rwandan:

I agree that was horrendous; however why is it the worst case? The US military also funds and sponsors media, and lies to create war. Why were the Rwandan government's provocations worse than the US's? More people have died in The War on Terror. Both wars were unjust, for power and profit, and targeted specific ethnic groups.

Rwanda's genocide itself does have a particularly evil nature. I'm just trying to show that it is difficult to say which is more evil.

Free speech isn't perfect; it is just better than the alternative.

>the worst side of "freedom to lie"

There are already laws against false accusations and lying. So in theory, if someone slanders a rape-survivor group by saying they have no right to be upset, etc., because they were not raped, the accuser can be held liable for those false accusations, which is a good thing. I support free speech strongly, but I don't think people have the right to deliberately lie about individuals, groups or businesses, without consequences.

[peteretep]

    > I have literally never heard a critique
    > about the negatives of american free
    > speech

Off the top of my head, I consider Citizens United, marketing of pharmaceuticals directly to consumers, and unregulated TV news to be negatives.

    > I do think americans are etc

It remains legal to read this article in all Western European countries. As to banning clothing, there are plenty of places in the US where you can't cover your face. What are actual examples in practice of how us Euros are worse off?

[fish_fan]

I gave you examples. :) Europeans who wish to wear a hijab may be abused based on where they are; that simple! It is not illegal to cover your face in public in America, and even if it were, the Hijab covers hair; the burkha might cover a face. This article is not what I would be worried about—rather, the anarchist handbook, for instance, or an explanation of encryption, or how to fool facial recognition in public.

Nonetheless, you are extraordinarily correct about citizens united, though I would more finger the blame there on corporate personhood, not free speech. The protections still make sense for individual; corporations do not make sense of individuals.

[gspetr]

> What are actual examples in practice of how us Euros are worse off?

Off the top of my head: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36055488

EDIT: Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9#Europe