[pphysch]

Pardoning Snowden in return for pardoning Glukhovsky would make sense, since neither is currently in captivity.

But both Navalny and Assange are actual political prisoners in similar situations, so couldn't they be swapped & liberated (in exile)? Seems it would benefit the popularity of Western leaders.

[londons_explore]

Snowden is 'worth' far more to the USA than Glukhovsky is to Russia.

[logdap]

Snowden's only value to the US is satisfying the grudge the government has against him. There's no practical value to everyday Americans in getting Snowden back now, whatever beans he had are spilt years ago.

[mushbino]

"Freedom of speech". US is no better than Russia.

[mrighele]

Cases like Assange's or Snowden are famous because they are a rare event.

And they are still alive. Had they done the same to Russia they would have been poisoned with novichok or polonium, or they would have fell from a window, or ...

How many journalists have been killed for criticizing the POTUS ? [1][2]

How many for criticizing the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq ?

What about human rights advocates ?

Has any doctor been killed for criticizing the federal response to Covid-19 ? [3]

The US have their fair share of problem regarding freedom of speech, but they are really not at all at the same level as Russia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...

[3] https://www.vox.com/2020/5/6/21248553/coronavirus-russia-doc...

[mushbino]

Only if you ignore the number of prominent people killed by the US government to keep them quiet. We know from court cases and declassified documents: Fred Hampton, MLK, Malcolm X, Gary Webb, Frank Olson, Collateral Murder (Chelsea Manning leak), Paul Guihard, Walter Reuther, Walter Liggett, Danny Casolaro, Mark Lombardi, and on and on. Most journalists you don't need to kill. You just ruin their careers like the NYT did to Chris Hedges when he criticized the Iraq war.

[qwytw]

The world isn't black and white nor is it binary. Yes US is flawed in many ways, Russia is on a whole other level of horribleness.

It's like comparing pre WW2 France with Nazi Germany...

[donottell]

At least in what regards you seeing yourselves "exceptional", and the vicious antirussian propaganda, effectively encouraging to kill, maim, religiously persecute and take away human rights from the russian people (openly in Ukraine, less openly in Baltic states and eastern europe, not so openly, but nevertheless actively, in the rest of the world), I would say that there is a stronger analogy between the nazi Germany and you.

[bombolo]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb...

[221qqwe]

Malta has/had(?) its own issues including a thoroughly corrupt government. It's much more likely that US or any other external force had very little to do with this...

[dejw]

Good find but Malta is the cayman islands of Europe. And Cyprus.

[fasterik]

>US is no better than Russia.

Whatever you think of the Snowden case, the US is far better than Russia on freedom of the press and tolerating political dissidents.

Look at the World Press Freedom Index. The US is ranked 45th in the world and gets a "satisfactory situation" rating. Russia is ranked 164th in the world and gets a "very serious situation" rating.

https://rsf.org/en/index

[mushbino]

Who makes that list? And when was the last time someone using controversial anti -government free speech in the US made a difference?

[fasterik]

https://rsf.org/en/who-are-we

>when was the last time someone using controversial anti -government free speech in the US made a difference?

I think it's the wrong question. The question of free speech isn't whether your speech is going to make a difference. It's whether you're allowed to express views in public without retaliation from the government. Anyone who wants to publish their controversial anti-government opinions in the United States can safely make a website or a print magazine. That doesn't mean anybody else is compelled to take their opinions seriously.

The same can't be said for Russia. We can look at the level of criticism of Trump that was tolerated during his presidency, and compare it to the level of criticism of Putin that is tolerated. It's clear that Trump was unable to silence his critics, even though he wanted to, while Putin can very easily throw his critics and political opponents in prison.

If we go a little farther back in history, the Pentagon Papers are a good example. The New York Times and the Washington Post were able to publish the Pentagon Papers despite the Nixon administration's attempts to silence and prosecute them. This had a significant effect on the public perception of the Vietnam War. It's hard to imagine anything similar happening in Russia around the war in Ukraine.

[pphysch]

> I think it's the wrong question. The question of free speech isn't whether your speech is going to make a difference. It's whether you're allowed to express views in public without retaliation from the government.

If your speech is controlled in a way that it has no effect, why would the government spend further resources punishing you? This seems to be a warped perspective on the spirit of democracy and free speech.

[JohnBooty]

In what country on earth is divulging classified information (ala Snowden) protected under "freedom of speech?"

Criticizing a war is not even remotely in the same league as divulging classified information.

[zlg_codes]

Snowden exposed the twofacedness of America's leadership, in a way that can't be easily swept under the rug. He's a whistleblower and people appear to care more about his revelation of information than the information itself, which is damning.

Maybe if America ran a proper ship, things wouldn't get released.

[vetinari]

It is not for criticizing; the first sentence of TFA says "accusing Russian soldiers of committing crimes in Ukraine." So, libel.

Libel isn't free speech either.

[dragonwriter]

What most countries consider libel is free speech in the US, which is why the US standards for libel, especially against public figures, is higher than most other countries.

Specifically, the First Amendment protection of free speech (and the identical rules incorporated against the states by the 14th Amedment) are why, among other impacts:

(1) In the US, falsity is an element of libel, rather than truth being a defense (or, in some foreign jurisdictions, not even necessarily being defense always.)

(2) In the US, libel against public figures (either in general, or limited purpose public figures within the scope in which they are public figures), requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice on top of the elements of libel that apply in other cases.

[dralley]

> It is not for criticizing; the first sentence of TFA says "accusing Russian soldiers of committing crimes in Ukraine." So, libel.

He shared a video of Russian troops committing crimes, in Ukraine. Which they are - both in that video and thousands of others besides. Truthful statements are not libel.

[donottell]

And then there are thousands of ucranian war crimes which you have no trouble to ignore. Or your own war crimes in Iraq and other countries, exposed by Assange, who, unlike Gluhovskii, trusted his part of the world legal system to protect him..

[pphysch]

> Truthful statements are not libel.

But they might impact national security.

[JohnBooty]

Grandparent poster says "US is no better than Russia" (with regards to freedom of speech) which is patently false.

We can prove it false right now.

The US committed multiple crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There, I said it.

If grandparent poster is correct, then I guess I'll be arrested here in America for committing the same crime.

We'll see.

[donottell]

But the correct comparison is with Julian Assange of course, not you..

[mjan22640]

It sounds like if the war crimes Glukhovsky criticized were classified, you would approve of his sentencing.

[JohnBooty]

No. Bad inference.

[221qqwe]

As flawed as US is.. that's still one of the most idiotic statements one could make (in general).

[londons_explore]

Careful - with that kind of attitude you'll end up on a no-fly list...

[pphysch]

How so?

[penneallagricia]

Navalny is not a political prisoner.