[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.

[fasterik]

Exactly whose speech is being controlled? You can express basically whatever opinion you want in the United States, as long as it's not inciting violence. The flip side is that everyone else has a right to ignore you or criticize you if they have a differing opinion.