Censoring isn't the same as investigating the use of bots and fake news to spread rumors and lies for polítics gain and literal profit. The right tries to confuse people by mixing their crimes with free speech.
I don't understand this post. Censoring is when a government official issues orders to publishers requiring them not so publish things. Whatever else you're talking about here you're simply using as a rationalization for censorship.
You have to know that you're being dishonest when the subject is a judge ordering publishers to unpublish and silence people, and you immediately equivocate between that and "investigating," then accuse "the right" of trying to confuse "their crimes" and "free speech." You're literally doing that right now. You are somehow explaining away literal and explicit censorship orders (that no one is claiming don't exist) as "investigation" of "their crimes."
In everyday language, when we say "censorship", we only mean the bad kind of censorship. On Hacker News and other places that discuss these topics more in-depth, many use the term more academically, leading to a neverending stream of confusion in the replies every time without fail.
Similar story for the term "democracy", which has a large number of meanings depending on who you're talking to. In this tree there's again people arguing about which specific examples are considered democratic without having even agreed on a common definition of the term.
They’re literally using their freedom of speech. Not sure what else you would call it.
0. https://i.em.com.br/Fpd82XCP-00L-3N2yGZxALIPPqA=/820x0/smart...
I think freedom of speech is kind of a bullshit concept at a philosophical level - I've become very blackpilled in that department - but at a legalistic level it's beyond the pale to me that someone could be imprisoned just for words barring very special circumstances.
The government should not be throwing people in prison for allegedly "spreading lies for personal or political gain" unless it already clearly falls under an existing crime (like fraud - getting someone to give you money under explicit false pretenses) or tort (like defamation - knowingly telling damaging falsehoods about someone else to harm them). Incitement to likely, imminent lawless action is also already covered.
Many people don't know that the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech[1] (Article 125[1]), provided it was "in conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system"
Same goes for other socialist governments: the People's Republic of China (Article 35[2]), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Article 67[3]), the German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany, Article 9[4]), and so on.
Of course, the reality was and is lengthy imprisonment for "free speech" against the government or ruling class.
"Free speech, except for [exceptions that are nearly infinite in scope]" is a key feature of socialist governments, as is justifying the imprisonment of dissidents and undesirables as "fighting anti-democratic forces" and "preventing the spread of misinformation".
Moreover, socialist governments are very clear that they are democracies; it's often in the name (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), and also frequently appears in speeches, official documents, etc.
Their commitment to "democracy" isn't just words-on-paper, either! Voting is usually either mandatory or "strongly encouraged", although you can only vote for a Party-approved candidate, and the outcome of elections is basically pre-determined.
[1] https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04....
[2] http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/...
[3] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Repub...
[4] https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/33cc8de2-3c...
Try advocating for communism from the 20s-80s or for the rights of black people in the 50s/60s/into-70s.
Or say the wrong criticism in the early 2000s after 9/11. At best you get surveillance, at worst you’re dealing with FISA.
We have not had any changes to the constitution to further protect speech, either.
The US has certainly had its problems, like widespread racism and the red scare, sure, but this is all relative to how other countries respond to speech with legal action.
Literally all of those things did.
- Equal rights activism https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/feb/1
- Communism activism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_...
And don't even get me started on Snowden and Assange exposing the tremendous (war + civilian) crimes of the US government and being silenced and persecuted for it.
> The US, from a law standpoint, has had the strongest free speech protections of almost any country in history.
Absolutely false. It's not even in top 10.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
You must be joking. Venezuela is 7th in the free speech index of that ranking.
Furthermore, you have 4 EU countries in the ranking, all higher vs USA. Those 4 EU countries are subject to ECHR, which has ruled freedom of speech does not apply :
- to protect the religious feelings of others [1]
- to restrict content that was tasteless [2]
- to say outrageous things [3]
Yet, all 3 examples above are constitutionally protected in USA. This sort of thing makes it very difficult to take the rest of your commentary at face value.
[1] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/otto-pr...
[2] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/leroy-v...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perin%C3%A7ek_v._Switzerland
“Free speech” is so ambiguously defined in the US that it’s effectively meaningless.
The US has had over two centuries of ambiguously defined “free speech” rights at many different levels, any of which could be taken away depending on what state you’re in, what federal circuit you’re in, or if you’re lucky, the Supreme Court or Congress.
So why do you consider yourself free when you do not know what defines free speech?
Quite frankly, anyone tuned into history beyond the basics ought to recall that even the initial leaders of the country did not believe in free speech — Thomas Jefferson had quite illiberal views on what a free press entailed.
For a modern example, providing abortion assistance is not free speech in the state of Texas.