Yup. Currently live in Asia and many of the less-than-democratic countries are pointing to the US media coverage and saying "see! freedom of speech is dangerous, even the Americans agree. when we restrict your speech we're just trying to keep you safe."

Law goes back to the code of Hammurabi, the start of civilization itself. The sole purpose is to limit the violence and not add to it. If there's anything arbitrary, it's the violence. The Magna Carta showed everyone is restrained by laws, or else there are no laws. We're back to being beasts again living in terror, squandering humanity's elevated position gifted to us, won long ago.

You can misspeak. Therefore, it's impossible for you to tell others what is perfect speech. That's all the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech is. It's unavoidable.

The best lessen enemies in times of contention, not create them. The USA took the gift of the New World and said if we're going to tell other people what to do, what's the minimum we have to do? We don't need to crush riots or deprogram people. Hundreds of cities burnt down in the USA due really dirty political tricks, and we left it alone. If people want to lead in the USA, they have to find a way themselves to overcome it without relying on tyranny, oligarchy or anarchy.

If you’re referring to comments like mine challenging the idea that private websites banning anyone for any reason has anything to do with free speech, you’re wildly mischaracterizing your US audience.

"Private websites" are the contemporary public square, especially so when half the world is locked at home and forced to communicate remotely.

Just because hardly anyone visits a website that aren't those private websites doesn't make them a public square. The analogy holds up IRL: most of our conversations happen on company property or in bars, and hardly anyone goes to the public square to mingle with strangers.

Interesting observation. I think that's very well put. If it's not public property it cannot be a public square where strangers can freely mingle and speak. It makes sense. If you mingle and speak out on someone else's property, they should be able to kick you out whenever they want. OTOH, private property does not necessarily mean the owner can do whatever he wants with whoever uses his property. The owner of a public space like a cafeteria cannot invite someone to leave on a whim. Yes, there's the "Rights of admission are reserved" but this is closely scrutinized and protected by law. I concede however that the consensus regarding this is not generalized [1]

Should Big Tech be accountable for all the content they publish, then? However, since they are not the authors of the content they publish, should their responsibility be something comparable to the responsibility of a traditional newspaper on its classifieds section?

[1] https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/propert...

This is the fulcrum point of this debate - right here.

Okay so what’s the “free speech” principle that demands sending in the government to force those websites to publish against their will?

> force those websites to publish against their will?

I would argue that the will of the websites is to actually allow publishing for the most amount of people. And they censor the opposing political views only because the government-aligned forces make them to. Basically if every corporation needs the government to survive they are going to do everything the government wants, even if they don’t admit to it. They would rather lose half the users than become completely defunct.

Why would you argue that? Do you have any evidence?

> private websites banning anyone for any reason has anything to do with free speech, you’re wildly mischaracterizing your US audience.

If US citizens already have a hard time discerning this imagine someone from China.

It’s amateur capital driven censorship. It’s inefficient, confusing, and divides a nation. Yes it would be viewed as suboptimal from someone familiar with nationalism and censorship in China.

Nonsense. In the US you have to just click another link to find viewpoints not represented on the website you’re currently at. In China you have to use a VPN to view blocked content. As an American I’m ashamed of my fellow Americans who don’t understand this.

There’s a credible case to be made that freedom of speech has allowed the US to prosper.

Who cares if it allowed the US to prosper? Freedom of speech is not about economic output but a value system. This utilitarian moral relativism might make sense in China but it is not part of modern Western culture. It was a civilisational conquest and a difficult one to obtain.

Values are useful. I don’t mean economic prosperity, I mean that our value system has largely worked.

What value system? You still have legal slavery!

There's a credible case it's just a happy coincidence. The large single economy with, until recently, open immigration policy were possibly bigger factors.

The US has prospered in war. It is in fact still basically prospering through war.

I'll be blunt, I was raised in a european democracy and live in China, I don't think democracy works anymore lol Trump is a big component, but the Brexit or what they do in Hungary, pff it's just disheartening.

I don't think China will forever sustain that large a monitoring, it's just inefficient the closer they get from an intellectual super power, but I have 0 respect for the US, or their "freedom of being an idiot" that they pretend is the same as freedom of speech.

One thing is sure, with that circus over there, they made us lose 10 years here. Nobody wants to experiment anymore with liberalization.

Please stay in China and be happy there.

What is it that you don't understand about democracy? A referendum was held in the UK in 2016. It was brought about by a Prime Minister who, along with a huge majority of the establishment including the BBC, thought that the result was a foregone conclusion. For sure, they said - most folk will vote to stay in the EU. But the voters decided otherwise. We voted `leave`. Abiding by that decision shows that democracy doesn't work anymore - and Brexit is an example?

But that I understand, the problem in democracy is that you can take bad decision that you glorify because it's made by the people.

It's fine, people can make collective mistakes, but I think we ignore several facts during a referendum like that: - People misunderstand the question - People understand the question but vote to answer another one - People are divided in groups with very different agenda that sometimes are shorterm good for a majority and long term bad for a minority (the elders might vote against the interest of the youth, then die leaving them with the mess)

I vote, and enjoy it, but I also recognize I'm as big an idiot as anyone else, and I don't think this worked in the Brexit instance. The PM proposed the vote for the wrong reason, people voted at a time they were not thinking of the Union long term, people voted massively divided (cities vs country side, England vs the others, old vs young), so what answer did they provide exactly ? That "the people want rid of the EU" or that "British society is so divided it barely even exists" ?

I guess at least in a democracy, mistakes can be reversed, but we seem to do so many I wonder if it's not better here where at least we stick to one single side and pursue it to the end rather than girouette around (in the EU, but with not everything, then out, then surely in again because out was stupid, etc).