Their methodology seems strongly politically motivated, because they rank Germany very highly despite the repression of speech related to Turkey by journalists in Germany. Germany literally made certain types of speech illegal for geopolitical reasons because of their ties to Turkey.

Perhaps these rankings would have been believable 5 years ago, but today, they are not. The United States is also rated much too low here, which also stinks of political motivation. While we do have a President that can't seem to help but open his mouth to release stupidity and toxicity, the US has the strongest legal protections of speech and press in the world, and the only government action against journalists that might shift this belief is the ongoing case with Julian Assange, too recent to have been reflected in these rankings.

There is, to my knowledge, only one country which has Constitutionally protected free speech and it's the United States. There are censorship laws on the books in most other countries, either in fact, or in actuality. Germany for instance censors many types of speech. You may have some argument that this is a good thing, but nonetheless it shouldn't rank higher on any unbiased free speech index than the US, and yet here is one in which it is more than 30 positions higher ranked.

In that ranking India is only 0.01 points ahead of pakistan. Does not pass my smell test about its methodology to be honest.

As an Indian, knowing the journalistic persecution and state of free speech in India, I wouldn't be surprised if India is tied up with Pakistan.

Here is some stuff to read up on this http://www.rightsrisks.org/banner/india-medias-crackdown-dur...

http://attacksonrtiusers.org/

This is totally wrong. We have free speech but the major problem is that poor and educated aren't ready for this level of openness in our society.

And this statement here (one I’ve heard before from others as well) demonstrates one of our biggest problems (speaking as someone who grew up in India) - and makes my blood boil.

Without respect for the individual and individual rights, Indian society will not progress. Sitting on your high horse and making judgements about how the poor and uneducated (or any other group) aren’t ready for free speech is not the way.

Here's something fresh for today; Amnesty India quits India operations due to govt' reprisals. https://amnesty.org.in/news-update/amnesty-international-ind...

Reality, I fear is fairly dystopic and I can keep posting such news articles all day which show India's slide into Authoritarianism.

The difference is actually 0.19 points. You can read their description of press freedom in India https://rsf.org/en/india or of Pakistan https://rsf.org/en/pakistan and neither sounds that great.

I constantly see Norway/Denmark/Sweden/Switzerland at the top of good lists, like this rsf one. Never been there, but a bit jealous (and happy for those living there) that other countries that have insanely more resources at their disposal are unable to copy these tiny countries.

Ar a private citizen do you believe that you're going to be unmolested by the US govt over your speech (and let's say there are a 100 statements test which include all kinds of speech) vs Norwegian govt?

Sri Lanka ranking well ahead of India is an even bigger red flag.

Journalists and editors have been openly killed in Sri Lanka for opinion pieces that dared to tarnish the government.

Agreed but it is ranked 127 so it’s towards the bottom as it should be.

And it seems anyone who has traveled outside of their home country recognizes this list as the bullshit that it is. Please stop linking it.

Any source for that, looks pretty good to me? Been to 30 or so different countries but not entirely sure why traveling abroad is relevant.

So, I'm not arguing "USA #1". Never would, and to be honest, I haven't been to every country to compare. But their reasoning for ranking it low is 'Trump cracking down' blah blah. Go to CNN's website right now, their top headline is literally calling him a sham. The press here is free to do this, naturally, despite alarmist theories.

Some of the countries ranked higher(in rank = lower number) are not even so safe to be in. How can you consider liberty among a place people can't even freely go where they want to report?

You probably won't get a reply. At least a rational one. I experienced similar sentiment here on HN when discussion the topic of freedom a while back.

Reporters without borders is probably one of the best sources to evaluate the quality of Freedom of Press worldwide.

But for some people arguing that not all is great with their freedom in the US challenges a part of their identity. And that makes rational discussion at least difficult.

As an example: Growing up near the Iron Curtain (on the western side) I believed for a long time, that we were the universally free side, while there was no freedom in the east.

During the last 10 years or so I realized that there were freedoms on the other side I didn't know of. And have never had in this so called free society.

I came to realize that there are different freedoms and that every society has different limits to these freedoms. Sometimes even within one country there are different limits to the same freedom for different social groups. Take Germany for example. The freedom to receive a good to great education depends massively on the affluency of one's family. There is nearly no chance of social movement for the poor. Or take the freedom to tell your boss what a bad idea it is to increase dividends for shareholders by 10% while letting people go (with the official reason being told is, that the company is struggling) and telling the rest, that there is no mt enough earnings to warrant a raise. I know people who were fired because of this.

Or take the outcry at Google when someone at Google published an internal mail with right wing leaning (if I remember correctly).

I am very much left leaning, but I would not challenge some parts of the ideological agendas being pushed at my workplace because I fear being ostracized.

So to make a long argument short I think freedom isn't an absolute. And the ideology behind it is often part of someone's identity. That makes rational discussion difficult.

You appear to be comparing the 2 kinds of liberty Isiah Berlin outlined[1], that of negative and positive liberty. English (and hence) American conceptions of liberty historically tend strongly to negative liberty, European countries like Germany emphasise positive liberty more - though as you point out there's a mix everywhere and to differing degrees.

One of my favourite interviews is with Berlin[2] where he talks about why positive liberty is so dangerous.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfhQhdA-zss Tom Richey with an intro [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIP9IjJcZr4 Isiah Berlin interview on the ABC on freedom

The problem with 'positive' liberty is simple. You can't have it without taking negative liberty away first- i.e. Universal Healthcare as a 'right'- you have to compel multiple levels of society via coercion in order to fulfill that right, thus weakening their negative rights to be free from such coercion.

For some reason, many people seem cling to a nebulous idea of 'government,' that is more a wish fulfillment mechanism than concrete enforcer entity, can provide positive rights without impinging on the more basic negative rights.

> As an example: Growing up near the Iron Curtain (on the western side) I believed for a long time, that we were the universally free side, while there was no freedom in the east.

> During the last 10 years or so I realized that there were freedoms on the other side I didn't know of. And have never had in this so called free society.

Mind sharing some examples?

For example there were many instances, were people were telling their boss what an idiot he/she was and I know of many cases were it even came to push, punch and shove. They did not loose their jobs for speaking their mind freely. On the other hand - while the west was allowed to tell their government what idiots they were, they boss was spared, because he/she could fire you (more or less) at will.

Also the freedom of social upwards movement was way greater in eastern Germany than in western Germany. Also the freedom of a better educational system (propaganda was massive in both systems none the less).

I think he mentioned indirectly the freedom to have a good education independently on one's parents wealth.

> Or take the outcry at Google when someone at Google published an internal mail with right wing leaning (if I remember correctly).

The only thing that comes to mind for me here is the Damore memo, except 1) he didn't publish it, and 2) it was very left-leaning. It was about how to actually achieve the company's diversity goals, there were just some parts of it based on actual research that went against accepted narratives.

Was there some other leaked email I'd not seen?

I'd say that as someone who actually has traveled outside their country, this list seems pretty fair to me ( at least for the countries I have traveled to or have friends/family staying in). what is your exact bone of contention? Methodology or specific country's ranking?