Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

He probably assumed no one would read it.

 

you probably assume that the word "some" means "no"

 

So what's the point of your link? The author doesn't even believe free speech is a thing in non-democratic countries. Just that it's written in some Constitutions that don't govern themselves democratically.

 

I don't know how you can form that conclusion. Take a look at p. 120 and tell me what you find there: I'll give you a hint, it looks a lot like "Free speech can exist in nondemocratic states and can have important functions in the operations of such states."

 

If and I'm quoting myself here below say this...

And you link a paper which cites modern day China, Qatar, and the former USSR as examples which exercise limited free speech, what conclusions would you draw?

I asked you specifically to give an example you'd be content living in. You deflected by linking a paper that apparently you don't even believe in. So why link it?

 

wtf

 

Which is easy to say like 150 years later.... Maybe you should read up on the history on the decades following the Civil War.... because that's more relevant.

 

Don't hold your breath for @Os Trigonum to give you her opinion without using someone else's opinion.

 

Well tell us instead of posting articles that you clearly didn't read.....

 

One of the dumbest things i've read today... and that's saying alot since I decided to open up facebook for the first time in like 2 weeks today.

 

I skimmed it (not read it fully admittingly) and I wouldn't consider the autocratic nations as having free speech they listed. There's no "partial free speech" - if the gov't can define what you can and can not say without fear of punishment - you don't have free speech in that country regardless of the constitution or laws on paper.

 

I think this is an interesting debate, I hope people don't pile on @Os Trigonum by making things personal.

 

We are witnessing the tendency of a culture of entitled (to power) people unwilling to be ruled by democratic means if that means they lose power. They can preach about democracy (and the constitution, and freedom, and free speech) all day long but as soon as they believe they are at risk of losing power and cannot control it, they give it up, which they have already done but have yet to fully succeed in establishing lasting minority authoritarian rule. It's not due to a lack of trying, planning and execution.

 

Better to have a white dictator than a black president.

 

Putin Russia is a great example of a "free speech" country. Except you literally die for it. When laws do not apply to a set of people, laws providing a set of freedom to the people are pretty much meaningless.

 

I bet a lot of those right wing Republicans believe that. My guess is that 90% of Republicans would rather have a White Nationalist Dictator over a black woman as President.

 

I don't think you really believe this--even in the United States there are plenty of time, place, and manner restrictions that make sense in different contexts. Otherwise free speech would have to be "absolute free speech" for your assertion to be true.

 

And better to have a police state than to not racially profile minorities.

 

Like Hitler's?

 

Outside of speech that will directly lead to violence or death, speech is unrestricted in the US. But in these other countries, criticizing the gov't or religions will get you in jail. Sure you are free to talk about the weather and sports, but that's it.

I don't think you can compare countries like Indonesia and Egypt as "partial" free speech lands. You can be imprisoned for criticizing the president and many websites are censored. So do you have free speech in Egypt? No. Do you have it in the US? Yes. To me, it's pretty binary.