[robotresearcher]

Mandatory ID cards are a cultural no-no in the UK. They were required during WW2, then discontinued in peacetime. People burned them in the street. You are not required to show ID to a police officer. Even when driving you don’t need to show a license on the spot, though if stopped for cause you have to present it at a police station within three days. At least those were the rules when I was a young driver there.

The UK has an idiosyncratic relationship with freedom. Technically you have little because (formally limited) monarchy. In practice there’s this aversion to IDs, things like freedom to roam which gives a lot of access to private property, and the ability to get citizenship elsewhere and keep UK, which republics like the US and India won’t allow.

And yet there’s massive camera surveillance from the recent nanny state. And libel laws mean you have to be careful what you print about people. Odd place. Maybe the weather inspires it.

[aikinai]

Multiple citizenships are absolutely allowed in the US.

[robotresearcher]

You are right, I was wrong.

[hollerith]

You assert that the US does not allow dual citizenship, but that is wrong:

>U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality (or nationalities). A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to their U.S. citizenship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...

[physarum_salad]

Yes, and this cultural attitude really goes way back, like since pre-1500s for England. Then throw Scotland and N.I. into the mix and there is absolutely no interest in this type of system...to put it mildly!

[umanwizard]

I know absolutely tons of people with US + one or more other citizenships. You are misinformed. IDK if there is technically some law against it, but if there is, that law is totally unenforced.

[octo888]

I don't understand why Americans hold freedom of speech / the First Amendment in such high regard.

What does it buy you?

Major corruption, abuse and misconduct still happens. Being able to criticise your government doesn't seem to matter in the social media age. Look at the state of politics in the US right now.

Seems like it's slightly redundant these days – a bit anachronistic?

Kind of odd the obsession with it.

(p.s.: All the social media companies being from the US, of course – thanks for all the misinformation, disinformation and hate speech platforms along with all that 'free speech'!).

[southernplaces7]

>What does it buy you?

Well, for one thing, it's not a transactional question of what it "buys". It's a matter of principle and defense against future repression or manipulation by politicians on a power trip.

For example, given Trump's current and blatant attempts to crush free expression against his own policies and bullshit, or even those who constantly insult and criticize him (whining about it like a little kid actually) imagine how much easier he'd have had it if there were no U.S 1st amendment to use against him.

There's an example of its value. It's just one of many.

If you think being able to protect free expression and the ability to speak out freely against power and its abuse is anachronistic, then I don't know what else to say except that you're a naive or dishonest fool, and possibly part of the very problem in places where péople just don't seem to care that under pretext X or Y, they can be stifled at any time.

Yes, the social media companies produce, or facilitate the production of, vast amounts of misinformation, disinformation and even hate speech, but guess what? All that shit gets produced en masse anyhow by repressive authoritarian regimes with narratives to construct and agendas to maintain. Free speech certainly isn't at fault for its existence, given that such things have existed since there's been propaganda or a perceived need for it.

At least, in a place like the U.S, where free speech remains protected (for now at least), any misinformation, disinformation or whatever speech by those in power or outside of it who create it, can be countered by others trying to speak more truthfully.

Try doing the same against misinformation and disinformation by government in Russia, or many other countries where "anachronistic" free speech is curtailed right to hell.

In essence, when governments can legally censor speech they decide is misinformation, disinformation or "hate speech", they can create all sorts of um, interesting, rubrics for deciding what fits under these labels, and then oops, by coincidence it can be anything that goes against their agendas. Going back to the Trump example, just pause for a moment to think about all the uncomfortable facts and opinions he loves to label as "fake news" or "misinformation" or even as hate speech. Now imagine him having the legal authority to sweep them away.

Nothing in any state guarantees against a future leadership with similar authoritarian proclivities from forming to use anti-free speech laws in similar ways.

There, my good faith response to your completely absurd line of rhetorical questioning.

[octo888]

My point isn't that you should wash it down the toilet because it serves no purpose (of course this is a useful strawman to employ when anyone criticises it); rather, perhaps, that obsessing about it and fully believing it can protect you against eg a Trump presidency isn't very healthy. A bit too much tunnel vision?*

> Well, for one thing, it's not a transactional question of what it "buys"

Let's not play semantics. It's just a phrase

> defense against future repression or manipulation by politicians on a power trip.

Why hasn't it defended against current or past ones? It's not a new amendment, is it?

> For example, given Trump's current and blatant attempts to crush free expression against his own policies and bullshit, or even those who constantly insult and criticize him (whining about it like a little kid actually) imagine how much easier he'd have had it if there were no U.S 1st amendment to use against him.

What has all that criticism gotten you? He's still President right? And there is a worrying number of people talking about a '3rd' term

> when governments can legally censor speech they decide is misinformation, disinformation or "hate speech"

Your government via its plethora of agencies absolutely does this

> At least, in a place like the U.S, where free speech remains protected (for now at least), any misinformation, disinformation or whatever speech by those in power or outside of it who create it, can be countered by others trying to speak more truthfully.

How's that working out?

> There, my good faith response to your completely absurd line of rhetorical questioning.

Wow, Americans really think they are protected from criticism like 'civis Romanus' were protected from harm.

I think your opinions are exactly those I was questioning. Maybe it isn't as useful as you think it is

* another phrase, not to be interpreted literally

[southernplaces7]

First, I'm not an American nor do I live in the USA. My mentioning the 1st amendment is because it's the best known example of free speech protection enshrined in the constitutional law of a country.

Secondly, your logic is well off. I never said the 1st or any similar sort of legal protection for free speech is a guaranteed tool against bad government, repression and censorship. Instead it's ONE tool against these things, and better than its complete absence.

Other efforts still matter and in the U.S, we'll just have to see how they pan out, or not. That still doesn't mean that the 1st or any equivalent to it is irrelevant.

By your apparent reasoning, it's worthless because it doesn't guarantee results and that's sort of like having a fireman throw away their fire axe because it's not a sure fix against a house burning down.