Austria nearly does. Mr. Bond. I see little difference between tweets and political parody songs.

It does appear to me that America and the rest of the West are diverging on this issue. We do not criminally prosecute people for political speech. Even speech most of us find abhorrent. We draw the line at inciting violence.

And look where that’s gotten you.

We don't put 93 year old women in prison for saying Auschwitz was a work camp, so wherever "we" are is at least not that bad.

Didn’t think I’d have to spell it out, but you’ve got Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and endless funding from the Koch brothers who were literally raised by a Nazi nanny, all abusing “free speech” to purposefully—and successfully!—destroy your nation.

Free speech absolutism or a functional society: you can pick only one, not both.

I don’t think chitowneats message deserved flagging, nor deletion.

Mr. Bond was a notorious neo-nazi rapper, calling it "political parody songs" is pretty misleading. For context: he was convicted of "Wiederbetätigung" (= glorification of national-socialism) which is a distinct criminal offence in Germany and Austria

So what? It's an abhorrent and dystopian law along with Saudi Arabia's speech laws. He has never done a violent thing to a person, has not defrauded anyone, and is in jail for 10 years due to writing political parodies.

Sorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous. Also, I don't know why you keep calling his songs "political parodies", they are outright neo-nazi propaganda...

They are parodies of songs and national socialism is a set of politics and philosophies - just because you don't like it doesn't make it not political.

> they are outright neo-nazi propaganda...

Yet again, so what? Are you insinuating that people are being assaulted by a song?

> Sorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous.

No, it isn't, and if you're going to claim that it is, you need to explain why.

Hmm, sure. Perhaps Austria and Germany are a bit culturally traumatized by the horrors they inflicted upon the world under an ideology, and they wish (based on historical data) to prevent such an occurrence again?

I don’t feel qualified to say whether this is effective, but it’s pretty obvious why this is characteristically different from “ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.”

> prevent such an occurrence again?

By imprisoning geriatrics and a guy who made some songs people didn't like the messaging of?

> ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.

I don't see the difference at all. These people are criticizing a sacred cow and the ruling class wants to crush that dissent.

If you're thinking so hard that you can't see the difference between someone resurrecting the ideology responsible in real, actual, recent history for 20-30 million deaths, versus someone who is criticizing a brutal dictator, then you are thinking too hard.

This doesn't need to break down to some formally correct logical statement. Simply look at the facts of each case, the goals of each party involved, the systems each party uses to legitimize its actions, and the resulting effects of each party pursuing their goals.

Edit: Did you delete your very nasty message accusing me and “my ilk” of being “beyond repair?” I guess that language really fits with the whole “defending neo-Nazis” schtick.

> Edit: Did you delete your very nasty message accusing me and “my ilk” of being “beyond repair?”

The comment has been flagged, so it's hidden unless you enable "show dead".

That’s cute. No interest in being “repaired” by someone who can’t see the obvious difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and the clear fact that even identical actions done by the two are not equally legitimate.

Democracy? So the people of these countries had some say in these laws? They did not. I'm not aware of a democracy on Earth that isn't just a dictatorship with fancy clothes, at least at the federal level.

My man, you're OK with throwing nonviolent offenders in jail for speech. This is not a good look.

A sensible person can think something is not okay and also think it's not equivalent to a theocratic dictatorship.

A sensible person can also see that "being on the losing side of an election" is not equivalent to "not having anything resembling an election."

I wouldn't even chalk these up to nuanced or detailed or subtle distinctions. These are basic, substantial differences that only a disgruntled WEIRD-worlder could struggle to detect.

> These people are criticizing a sacred cow and the ruling class wants to crush that dissent.

There is quite a difference between critizing the "Verbotsgesetz" and literally spreading neo-nazi hate speech.

We do if they would contain magic words that make them run afoul of the plainly unconstitutional Espionage Act

It does seem difficult balancing an open and free society with mechanisms for protecting and maintaining government secrets, and punishing those who betray those secrets.

Do you believe it is plainly unconstitutional simply because it posting to twitter involves words?

Democratic governments where the premise is "of the people by the people" I believe it is be highly undemocratic and corrupting to allow government to hold secrets from the very people that granted them power and are suppose to hold them to account via the ballot box

Democracy can only work when the citizens are informed about what their government is doing

The 1st amendment clearly states the Congress can not pass any law abridging speech. The espionage act clearly prevents whistleblowers and others from coming forward with information the government does not desire to be public which today is more often to be documents and evidence of crimes and embarrassing actions by government

I do understand the dangers of a government that can arbitrarily declare something a "state secret" and subsequently stifle speech on some arbitrary grounds.. but at the same time, can you recognize that there may be legitimate grounds to forbid dissemination of particular information on the grounds that it is advantageous to hostile entities, and thus a detriment to the US as a whole?

While conceptually I can see such information can exist, I take it the same way I do free speech as a concept, over all I believe the negatives of allowing governments to hold secrets to be more damaging than any positives

Just like I do not believe tech companies, or governments to censor "misinformation" or "disinformation" because the negatives of controlled speech far far far out weigh any net positives that would come from censorship

Back to state secrets, I think the clear and obvious abuse of the practice should make it more than clear we should cease giving government agencies the "benefit of the doubt" and massively shift the Overton window back in the direction of total transparency

State secrets, if they exist at all, should be EXTREMELY abnormal, rare, and continually in need of justification. Today however state secrets are the default, standard procedure, and we need justification to open records which is a complete inversion of how it should be

We can just refer to the social media posts as "material support to a terrorist organization."

Equating the US to Saudi Arabia is beyond divorced from reality. No, you can't "just" do that and get anywhere close to similar outcomes as what's happened here.

Turn on your TV anywhere in America, walk into a coffee shop, talk to a friend. Conversations freely and frequently come to vigorous criticisms of those in power. Now go try to do that almost anywhere in the Middle East. You'll struggle to find someone willing to even remotely entertain that conversation with you.

That's what oppression looks like. Not hypotheticals like the one you're proposing here.

Any examples of this happening?