[Defletter]

This is where the propaganda surrounding American-style free speech clashes with reality. Many people assume it protects all speech unless it's incitement to imminent lawless action, "fighting words", etc. But that is simply not the case. This is in large part due to how American law doesn't do what it says. Read their First Amendment, actually read it: it's a limitation on Congress. It's become much, much more than that because their Supreme Court is a de facto legislative body.

This is how you get the Red Scare; that money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo); that legal entities are people with free speech and thus campaign donations cannot be restricted (Citizens United v. FEC); that retaliatory arrests for speech are fine so long as there's probable cause for something else (Nieves v. Bartlett); that therapists have a right to convert their underage gay clients (Chiles v. Salazar); etc. Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect?

The whole "objectionable tweets" thing is so overplayed too. British pundits like to wax poetic about the apparent persecution of people for political speech, and the "political speech" is, for example, Lucy Connolly calling for the burning down of a hotel building housing asylum seekers.

The biggest sufferers under UK speech restrictions are not tweeters, it's protesters, and yet the examples are always tweeters. Isn't that interesting?

[streetfighter64]

> Many people assume

Oh, did I do that? Where?

> This is how you get ...

Not really, you're just naming a shopping list of examples of what I mentioned earlier: "USA has many deep problems in their politics", with a very tenuous connection to the laws on speech.

> Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect?

I did hear about that, why are you assuming I didn't? Can you explain the connection to the issue at hand though, because I'm not seeing it.

I chose the tweets example because it's one of the more ridiculous examples, but I could just as well have named Palestine Action or numerous other examples from other european countries. What's "interesting" about it?

Isn't it "interesting" how you're trying very hard to paint a certain picture of the discussion?

[Defletter]

Okay, so let me make the question plain: what would American-style freedom of speech fix for the UK that isn't also a problem in the US despite having said freedom of speech.

[streetfighter64]

If you read my original comment ("actually read it") you'll see I was simply stating that, in my opinion, it is better to not have ridiculous archaic laws on speech than to have them. What problem does having the restrictions on speech that are currently in place in the UK solve?

Are you claiming the problems in the USA that you mentioned are because of or despite having freedom of speech? You earlier seemed to claim that e.g. the jailing of activists was because of the free speech laws (the "this is how you get" line). So which one is it?

[Defletter]

If all you have to offer is mere ideological preference, then I think this conversation has reached its limit of what it'll be able to achieve.

[streetfighter64]

LOL. At least I'm intellectually honest about my "mere ideological preference" for not restricting speech, instead of trying to somehow construe that free speech is the cause of all the evils in the world.

[Defletter]

@grok could you please find the part where I said that free speech is the cause of all the evils in the world?