[vacri]

-- OK, to begin with, Australia still bans things. This is something the USA grew out of decades ago:

BULL and SHIT. In Australia, there is no routine pixellation of middle fingers, likewise pixellating the mouth of someone swearing.

It's an utter fabrication that there's no censorship on things in the US: It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours.", from http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

And I've already mentioned the Press Freedom Index, which indicates the Australian press is freer (scum that they are) than the US press. There's a difference between idealism and how the place is actually run. Hell, the US even introduced the anglosphere to the concept of "Free Speech Zones".

Hell, even movie ratings are a form of censorship, and the US has those. Those movie ratings cause movies to be modified in order to meet them. The US even introduced the world to "Parental advisory: explicit lyrics" which was a soft form of censorship; some stores would not carry such marked CDs, and some shopping centres would not allow stores within to carry them.

Some US states prevent atheists from holding political office - that's an explicit penalty for exercising freedom of speech.

When I was in San Francisco, it was illegal for me to take a photo of a school. Standing in a public place, it was illegal for me to take a normal point'n'click photo facing one direction but not another. Similarly, both countries ban public nudity except in some specific areas.

Then, of course, there's all the provisions for the support of US IP law and legislating against filesharing that Australia has had to engage in duty to treaty obligations with the US.

Ultimately, when you say "Australia still bans things", you make it sound like a commonplace experience. It really isn't - and banned items are few and far between. Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades, and includes paragraphs like: Explicit sex scenes have also become more common. Channel Nine's crime drama Underbelly has frequent coarse language and sex (including explicit anal rape) with one episode featuring a "drug-fuelled orgy with prostitutes accompanied by the Spiderbait song "Fucken Awesome"". I am actually interested to hear if you can name more than a handful of banned items from the past couple of decades. By the way, does exporting cryptography count?

The US does have better protections for individual freedom of speech, but the gulf between the two nations really isn't all that large, nor is it all in the US's favour.

-- Which are similar to the insane laws against denying the Holocaust or even using certain images in parts of Europe:

One thing that we here in the Anglosphere need to remember is that in WW2, we were unequivocably on the side of moral good. We were fighting the clearest moral evil humanity has known. All of the Anglosphere, undivided. For the European continent, the experience was much more complex and painful, and even those countries that fought against the Axis had plenty of collaborators. Idealism is nice... until it's tested, then pragmatism needs to have a voice.

In any case, you're talking about a very specific incident in history, which in Europe has a very real knock-on effect of lending support to neo-nazism. You can go hog-wild about denying the efficacy of Bismarck's reforms. Question Kaiser Wilhelm all you want. But the pragmatism of legislating against holocaust denial or sporting the swastika is basically the same as anti-defamation legislation: it's saying 'don't diminish this'.

Think about it this way: those laws are very specific in terms of what they ban. So you can't show the swastika in Germany. It doesn't mean that they're going to 'slippery-slope' their way to banning other images. There seems to be a belief in America that Germans want to obscure the past - they don't. From a friend in Germany, they're acutely ashamed of that past, and these laws help to avoid obscuring that past and lessening the impact of the resulting lessons. The laws you speak of here aren't things that hit people in their everyday lives, they're specific, targeted laws. The laws would not be around in an ideal world, but in a practical world, there is a tangible reason for them. As laws go, they're not 'insane'.

I'm not sure how the side-effects you see of these laws is any better or worse than the routine emotional pain that folks like the Westboro Baptist Church deal out under freedom of speech laws. Not showing a swastika in a manner other than historical education, compared against having a lunatic scream at me while I'm burying a loved one? Which one actually has the more social or psychological harm there?

-- What's worse, they do nothing to solve any of the real problems modern Europe has with anti-Roma and anti-Muslim racism.

US free speech also does nothing to solve any of the real problems modern America has with anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim racism. The holocaust denial laws are not there to solve racism. They're there to stem violent nationalism, the European forms of which don't exist in the US.

[derleth]

> BULL and SHIT. In Australia, there is no routine pixellation of middle fingers, likewise pixellating the mouth of someone swearing.

We don't ban whole works. Australia does.

> Hell, even movie ratings are a form of censorship,

Nonsense. Self-imposed rating systems are in no way comparable to governmental censorship.

> Some US states prevent atheists from holding political office

Wrong. Those laws may be on the books, but they could never be enforced, due to the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

> Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades

It's the principle of the thing.

> Idealism is nice... until it's tested, then pragmatism needs to have a voice.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. If you abandon your principles the moment they're tested, they were never your fucking principles at all.

> But the pragmatism of legislating against holocaust denial or sporting the swastika is basically the same as anti-defamation legislation: it's saying 'don't diminish this'.

By making it seem that it can't fight deniers on an equal footing, that it needs laws to bolster its argument.

> those laws are very specific in terms of what they ban

So? That doesn't make it better.

> US free speech also does nothing to solve any of the real problems modern America has with anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim racism.

We don't ban face veils. Talk to me about racism when you've stopped banning veils.

> They're there to stem violent nationalism, the European forms of which don't exist in the US.

We had the KKK, which was just as violent and just as nationalistic as European forms of it. We were able to destroy it (twice!) without resorting to the destruction of fundamental freedoms.

[vacri]

-- We don't ban whole works. Australia does.

Name some that have happened in the past couple of decades, given that this was your initial point of note. Then explain to me how those particular selected works are anything but a narrow gap between the US and Australia, in real terms rather than purity of ideology.

And need I remind you again about IP laws? Lifetime of author plus 70 years is a very real ban on associated works by other people. Something can enter the public mindspace and yet be forbidden for people to freely reimagine for around a century? Yeah, that's not a 'ban', because in principle, your grandchildren could publicly release your writings, right? US IP laws are particularly onerous and reduce the freedom of expression of people in other countries through treaty obligations, yet apparently the US principles of free speech remains clean as a whistle to you?

-- Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades > It's the principle of the thing.

So, Australia has the principle of being able to ban entire works and yet doesn't ban anything. This to you is insane totalitarianism. (conveniently you think that partial censorship is okay, it's just total bans that are so outrageously offensive)

On the other hand, states in the US have laws stating that you can't take office if you are an atheist. You state that this is fine and dandy, despite the inherent requirement for someone to challenge those laws to engage in a lengthy and costly court engagement, with plenty of social fallout. This to you is fine principle.

So, a 'bad' law seldom enforced = terrible, while a 'bad' law that can be overcome only through heavy investment of resources (ie: limited to the very wealthy) = awesomesauce. There is a world of difference between idealistic principle and how things work pragmatically.

-- If you abandon your principles the moment they're tested, they were never your fucking principles at all.

I didn't say anything about principles. I was talking about idealism being tested. These are not the same thing.

-- We don't ban face veils. Talk to me about racism when you've stopped banning veils.

You have a pretty tortured definition of racism, if it requires the banning of face veils before it's a problem.

How about the US's problem with 9% of black men currently being either in jail or on parole? Can we talk about that as a problem of racism, or is it off the cards because US muslims can wear face veils, unlike a couple of selected European countries?

And, once again, I'd like to point out that despite your lauding of how free speech is in the US, the US press is still less free than the Australian press - actual implementation of speech is curtailed in the US more than it is in Australia when it comes to the press. All your pontificating about one particular ideal means little in terms of how things are actually done pragmatically. I mean hell, in the US, despite your puritanical ideal of free speech, you have a whole selection of two political parties to vote for. What a range of expression available for your political voice! Here in Australia, there were so many parties available for the last federal election, that the ballot paper was over a meter long. Yeah, you're right, Australia has such a limited freedom of expression, because one book on euthanasia was banned in the past 20 years. That single point completely trumps all other freedoms a country has, and means that there is a vast gulf in comparison to the US.

Get over your puritanical idealism and have a look at how things are actually run - this is what affects peoples' lives, not the nominal principle they say they adhere to. There are plenty of avowed christians who behave in a very non-christian manner, for example. In real terms, there really isn't that much difference in free speech between the US and Australia.