You could even make the argument that China and Russia are actively feeding into things like this in order to make people anti-free speech/thought and cause internal strife/erosion because our eroding institutions (including free speech) gives them a leg up globally to set their own agendas in motion.

The very fact that is successful just further reinforces my point doesn't it? If we see different countries as competing organisms, obviously in the 21st century China would have a leg over us precisely because of things like their government would shut down any anti-mask speech or movement at the first sight.

Imagine a terrorist cell just unleashed a biological weapon that's far more deadly than Covid. Which country do you think will fare better in this scenario, China or the U.S.? Would Americans still be arguing about the superiority of democracy and free speech if a majority of the people died?

You could make this argument about any totalitarian regime vs a free society, so no.

Of course I could make this argument, and it would be a very valid argument too.

There are pros and cons to each system, do you really believe free societies has absolutely zero trade offs or drawbacks?

No I don't believe there are no trade offs, I believe a free society is a vastly superior system despite its drawbacks. I'm sure if the United States government did a strict lockdown and welded the doors shut of COVID patients and left them to die, we'd have a much lower case count.

> I'm sure if the United States government did a strict lockdown and welded the doors shut of COVID patients and left them to die

No country did that, why are you making things up? China stopped people from leaving their houses but at the same time provide supplies and delivered food through organized effort for weeks. That was well documented by even foreigners living there.

Hell, let's not use China's example, what about countries like Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, etc all managed to be both democracies and selectively enforce rules at the same time?

There is video evidence of China welding and barricading apartment doors shut with people still inside.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1703503427818

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/is-china-locking-up-ent...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/business/china-coronaviru...

>Hell, let's not use China's example, what about countries like Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, etc all managed to be both democracies and selectively enforce rules at the same time?

Not sure what your point is here. If you're saying information is a virus to society and we need reasonable restrictions on it to save it...I don't agree and there isn't much if any recorded history to support that assertion. Information and expression doesn't kill, it's not a virus. It's not even a comparison.

>I don't agree and there isn't much if any recorded history to support that assertion. Information and expression doesn't kill

What the hell? Are you serious? Yes, anti-semitism never killed anyone, anti-vaccine misinformation never hurt anyone, and calling Covid a hoax didn't cause any unnecessary death either /s.

>it's not a virus

It's not, because it spreads far, far faster than even the most dangerous virus.

Yes you are correct, it is the damn commies. That's why people like Snowden and Assange received all sort of protection by the western democracies for their roles in unveiling bad stuff done by powerful people. Could you imagine Snowden in Russia or Assange in a left latin country? Yucks.

That's a great deflection, but it's not in the same sphere as the fear of the newly found fears of election interference that is driving people to become anti-free speech. That is directly coming from Russia and China.

Snowden and Assange are quite different, though I am also not opposed to whistle blowers, if it isn't reckless and endanger lives (such as giving up troop positions, etc.)

> it's not in the same sphere as the fear of the newly found fears of election interference that is driving people to become anti-free speech.

I grew up in a latin-american country, US interference in elections was a given, not a suspiction, a fact, million of dollars poured by the NED and the CIA, which proportionally meant a huge fraction of the electoral budget in the country and yet people still went to vote. Now I need to feel worried about the end of the civilization as we know it because the russians bought 500k or so of facebook ads and have bot farms? Go to reddit, specifically to r/politics and you will see there the blue wave doing the same, but there is not outcry. Hillary lost, because she was a lousy candidate and because of the EC system, luckily for Vladimir he also got what the wanted, but not because of the genius of his intelligence services.

I don't deny any of that, and I don't think Hillary lost because of Russia. I don't even think that was their goal at all. The entire goal is to establish distrust in American institutions among the populace, which includes the 1A. That was my entire point.

I understand your point , but surely you would agree that A) Any Russian disruption is dwarfed by the inside dynamics in the country. B) Many people in power use the Russian-scare to promote a narrative that may help them to maintain or obtain power. This is nothing new. McCarthy did the same.

As long as there is people and society there will be a civilization one way or the other.

You may not like that civilization, but saying a specie cannot survive unless we adhere to democracy and free speech is the product of your upbringing but not the product of objective reality.