109

You need to keep in mind that the press freedom ratings is not a measure of freedom of speech, but freedom of the press, and the US is still ranked as "fairly good". Specifically, the index describes itself: What does it measure? The Index ranks 180 countries and regions according to the level of freedom available to journalists. It is a snapshot of ...


78

This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms. This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but ...


71

tim's answer already covers the Press Freedom Index methodology. I'd like to add that for the United States the significant component of the result is the abuses score of 37.40. This is a fairly large number: the second highest among the top 50, after Denmark (which has a score of 45, apparently, due to the murder of Kim Wall in 2017). US Press Freedom ...


63

The Law and Polish Complicity in the Holocaust While "Poland as a nation" is not to blame for the Holocaust, and while there was no official cooperation between Poland and Germany, government institutions as well as individual Poles collaborated with the Nazis (see also here): As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, ...


63

Of course no other country protects freedom of speech "as the United States do." They have their own rules which are not quite the same. Some give equivalent protections, some do not. There is a tendency to see the restrictions on freedom of speech (or other freedoms) which apply in your country as just common sense and as properly safeguarded by courts. ...


54

Fact checking is neither easy nor instantaneous. The time taken to fact-check even a simple statement and do it thoroughly is measured in hours, not minutes. For example, let's take one of Trump's most famous and simplest lies, one most clearly known to be false, that his inauguration was the biggest in history. To get a definitive answer you need to: Go ...


47

This topic is examined at quite some length in Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Political Activity, Public Comment and Disclosure by Crown Employees (1986) (cited by Mcmanus v Scott-Charlton which was cited in the judgement of the original case in question, which is how I ended up on it; I mention this lest one think that a Canadian document might ...


39

1) They would be absolutely allowed to promote any political agenda as a publisher, but not necessarily as a platform. It's contentious whether famous Section 230 allows them to find a perfect sweet spot: shielded from any liability for content posted by crazy users as if they were merely a platform; having huge editorial discretion in selecting what to ...


36

ECHR Article 10 applies almost everywhere in Europe: Article 10 – Freedom of expression Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from ...


35

TL;DR: The answer to "why" is because limits on freedom of expression makes the regime less disliked (your question is confusing cause and effect - the popularity of the regime is a consequence of limits on free expression) and reduces both the effort required to stay in power and the likelihood that it falls out of power. It's as simple as that. Stratfor (...


35

The core concept here is procedural fairness—or rather, the appearance of procedural fairness. Procedural fairness involves whether impartial and open procedures are used when decisions affecting the well being of others are made. Is the decision-maker impartial? Is the game rigged? Procedural fairness is crucial for the health of a democracy ...


32

Up front: Holocaust Denial is not limited under U.S. law. There is an adequate list on Wikipedia of free speech exceptions, that for convenience I will replicate here: Communicative impact restrictions (e.g. incitement, elicitation) False statements of fact (e.g. libel, slander, perjury) Obscenity (very tightly interpreted, and only regulated in public) ...


31

Are there really no countries that protect Freedom of Speech as the United States do? The question is poorly framed. I interpreted it such that you imply that the US is at the top of some "Freedom of Speech" measurement. However, nothing comes even close to a universally accepted "Freedom of Speech" index which could provide us with a preorder. The one ...


28

This is not a valid dichotomy, because "identity politics" simply means an election campaign strategy of saying "Vote for us if you belong to [demographic] because we are the party of [demographic]". But people who justify discrimination of minorities with freedom of speech rights are also a demographic which politicians can and do cater to. And I would ...


26

Constitutional vs. human rights Did the protestors, by effectively making the area surrounding the planned talk so unsafe that it had to be cancelled, infringe on the speaker's first amendment rights Individuals cannot infringe on a speaker's first amendment rights in the United States. The first amendment is a restriction on federal power that was ...


23

Because it Violates Sovereignty The political science and legal concept here is sovereignty. The basic notion of sovereignty is that any sovereign power is free to rule itself without interference by other sovereign powers in its internal affairs. The principle of non-intervention further says that no state should interfere in the political independence of ...


23

Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain. The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that ...


22

If a person or organization inside the state interferes in an election by illegal means, the citizens and government have lawful ways of dealing with that through the courts or election councils. A foreign state can't be stopped so easily, as we've seen in Russia's case. There was no way for Hillary Clinton to sue the hackers that broke into the DNC ...


22

Consider where your line of thought will lead: You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used? Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship ...


21

The Maryland Law Review published an article summarizing several sources of the U.S. freedom of the press (Bogen, 1983). Parliamentary Privilege Prior to the American revolution, freedom of press and speech were only applied to members of Parliament as a part of their official duties. At this point the two rights were distinct: members of Parliament ...


21

Question: Why don't politicians get fact checked immediately? If the emphasis is on "immediately", I generally agree that it may not be possible to challenge a politician's statement in real time. It maybe possible on occasion, but not consistantly. To that extent I agree with @Clayworth's answer. However, if the "immediately" is dropped from the question, ...


21

There is no consensus. Not even among the so-called Western nations, and certainly not beyond that. Many countries use double standards for their own citizens (or residents) and those of other nations. One group is protected by their constitution, the other isn't. Some countries are making distinctions between the content of communication and the metadata ...


21

The Wikipedia page of self-censorship just tell part of the story, there are other "invisible hand" such as corporate censorship. Media may reject story or even advertisement that "offend" their main advertisement buyers. A good example is consumer goods price hikes by the change of packaging, US media usually dare not to report it, or using the free ...


21

Assuming your question is to be interpreted as "show me examples", what happened more recently that's reasonably relevant to a scenario like you propose was Wukan, in which local anti-corruption and to a certain extent pro-[local]-democracy activists were eventually suppressed: During the 2011 protests, Zhuang helped barricade the coastal hamlet of 15,000 ...


20

Facebook can and does actively promote a political agenda. They even formed a Political Action Committee, FB PAC, through which they donate money to various politicians and PACs (and contrary to right-wing narrative, they have been known to give more money to GOP causes). They also sell advertising space on their website for political ads, though this is a ...


18

That's how successful Autocracy works. Inspire radical nationalism where possible (see: Cult of Personality), put the fear of god into the rest. You can see this today in China and Turkey in addition to Russia. Xi in China touts a comparable approval score to Putin in this article's calculations, and Erdogan is reported similarly. All of these countries have ...


18

The issue is not so much about "Polish death camps" but about doubts of how far does the law go, or how far will future laws go. While the death camps, during WWII there where a few cases were Polish people did commit war crimes; either as individuals colaborating with the Germans, in operations together with the German occupation forces or even by units of ...


17

They are not mutually exclusive, but there are contentious points. Both positions are a bit ill-defined (I really needed to look up what "identity politics" and "New Left" means), so I will define them before the argument so you can pinpoint your arguments. For me the intention of "freedom of speech" is that I am able to speak out even a repulsive opinion ...


17

The phrase "I don't tolerate the intolerant" is known as the paradox of tolerance. While this phrase seems to be self-contradicting, it illustrates a fundamental obstacle for those who want a tolerant society. When someone wants to maximize tolerance in a society, they must ostracize those people who stand against this value (the sexists, racists, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible