Others responding to my speech by exercising their own rights to free speech and free association as individuals does not violate my right to free speech. One can make an argument that corporations doing those things (e.g. your Play Store example) is sufficiently different in kind to individuals doing it -- and a lot of people would even agree with that argument! It does, however, run afoul of current first amendment jurisprudence.

Either way, this is categorically different from China's policies on e.g. Tibet, which is a centrally driven censorship decision whose goal is to suppress factual information.

> Either way, this is categorically different from China's policies on e.g. Tibet, which is a centrally driven censorship decision whose goal is to suppress factual information.

You'll quickly run into issues and accusations of being a troll in the "free world" if you bring up inconvenient factual information on Tibet. The Dalai Lama asking a young boy to suck on his tongue for example.

Pretty sure that event was all over the western web as a gross "wtf" moment. I don't remember anyone, or any organization, that talked about it being called a troll.

It was only surprising to people because he was hyped up as a progressive figure in a liberation struggle, not a deposed autocrat.

I see you trying to equalize the arugment, but it sounds like you are conflating rules, regulations and rights versus actual censorship.

Generally the West, besides recent Trump admins, we aren't censored about talking about things. The right-leaning folks will talk about how they're getting cancelled, while cancelling journalists.

China has history thats not allowed to be taught or learned from. In America, we just sweep it under an already lumpy rug.

- Genocide of Native americans in Florida and resulting "Manifest Destiny" genocide on aboriginals people - Slavery, and arguably the American South was entirely depedant on slave labour - Internment camp for Japanses families during the second world war - Students protesters shot and killed at Kent State by National Guards

> In Europe, on top of that, you will get fines, loss of freedom, etc.

What are you talking about?

I had prepared a long post for you, but at the end I prefer not to take the risk.

You may believe or not believe that such exist, but EU is more restrictive. Keep in mind that US is a very rare animal where freedom of speech is incredibly high compared to other countries.

The best link I can point you to without taking risk: https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/chilling-legislation/

one thing comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

Not really, I was thinking about fake news, recent events, foreign policy, forbidden statistics, etc.

The execution is really country-specific.

Now think that at the EU-level itself, they can fine platforms up to 6% of the worldwide turnover under the DSA. For sure they don't want to take any risk.

You won't go to jail for 10 years, it's more subtle, someone will come at 6 am, take your laptop and your phone, and start asking you questions.

Yes, it's "soft", only 2 days in jail and you lost your devices, and legal fees but after that, believe me you will have the right opinion on what is true/right or not.

For what you said before, yes, criticizing certain groups or events is the speedrun to get the police at your door ("fun" fact: in Greece and Germany, saying gossips about politicians is a crime).

The US is way way way more free. Again, it's not like you will go to jail long time, but it will be a process you will certainly dislike, and that won't be worth winning a Twitter argument.

Gossiping about politicians isn't a crime.

Spreading fake news (especially imagery) or insults fall in defamation cases, politicians or not.

Germany is indeed a bit harsh on that.

But in any case you're really cherry picking very very rare examples, if you want to feel the US is "way way way more free" and you're convinced about that good for you.