The Declaration of Independence, constitution and bill of rights aim to recognize and protect rights everyone is born with.

Do you think your country is the only one that thought of free speech? Your particular implementation is irrelevant, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by giving us a lecture on how some foreign country justifies their self-perception.

That being said, it is somewhat humorous how you're confirming the stereotypes that apparently even that needs guns and violence over there somehow?

> Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision

The crowd that claims to be in favor of free speech should be in favor of free speech for everyone, not just US citizens. This thread isn't about the government - it's about how HN's very vocal "free speech" crowd are actually libertarians who want to say awful things and not get called out rather than people who stand up for the concept of free speech in general.

Why is my position invalid? I'm in favor of the exact type of free speech provided by the Bill of Rights for citizens of the USA, of which I am one, and that I do not care about the fantastical universal "for everyone" form of free speech that is being pushed on HN?

Let your own countries defend their own "free speech" rights. The UN cannot defend it for you, and you cannot defend it for yourself.

So you only care about things that benefit you?

So basically your position is imperialism mixed with some weird provincial fetishization of some document, not being pro free speech?

And you wonder why people consider that both ugly and simultaneously ridiculous?

Good point, we should also allow foreign organizations to contribute to US election campaigns and make Facebook ads because they might also believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, uh... right?

Money isn't speech.

As you said yourself:

> > If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.

If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at money.

Either the right extends everywhere, including money, or it doesn't.

That doesn't follow.

It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them. It's OK to say that you support some criminal activity (let's say Luigi), but it's not OK to offer direct financial support for their crimes.

> It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them.

Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician.

Capital always exists, even in the form of words. To deny a variant of capital whilst allowing another variant is inconsistent/doublespeak.

Just because it's not printed onto a piece of denominated paper, doesn't mean that such capital doesn't exist.

> Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician.

Neither the law nor common interpretation of words agrees with this. There is a significant and crucial difference between words and actions.

> There is a significant and crucial difference between words and actions.

The difference is artificial, and delusionally blinds itself to the base reality that social/political capital exists.

Again, just because there isn't a cash figure attached to that bounty, doesn't mean that a reward hasn't been attached to it in the form of social/political prestige.