Of course there are still ways around this. Use a good VPN like Proton.
This is still for sure going to be copied by authoritarian regimes worldwide.
no VPN, rt.com works just fine in the UK, no issues.
i think they banned the live TV in the EU and UK. and i think they also banned the website in the EU, but apparently it’s not enforced? https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-rt-sputnik-eu-access-bans-p...
haven’t found anything about rt.com being banned in the UK thou.
This is a notable area where the US is an exception, and is significantly more free than other western countries. No need to worry about art or materials being censored here, at least outside of specific contexts like some states banning books from schools.
While the government may not arrest you, the consequences of expressing your opinions can still be excessive.
If I read your original comment right, you were agreeing that the US might be ahead as far as government censorship but not as far as the types you list here, is that correct?
Very brosd definition could be: “suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.”
> And it's not exactly censorship, it's people being fired as a consequence
I guess it all depends how picky we are about the definition of the term.
To an extent, but if people are calling firing sexual abusers censorship I'd say that doesn't fit any definition.
Change “significantly” to “technically” or at least to “”, and then I will agree with the statement.
It’s just that the restrictions the US has are determined by Americans to be the right levels and other restrictions (for example laws against glorifying nazism) are the wrong levels.
The sad thing is Americans believe the propaganda that they have freedom and nowhere else does and therefore their restrictions on speech aren’t real but others are.
Some states are doing that at a state level in limited contexts. Individuals are still free to post or publish whatever they want.
> It’s just that the restrictions the US has are determined by Americans to be the right levels and other restrictions (for example laws against glorifying nazism) are the wrong levels.
No, it's that in the US this kind of freedom is significantly more protected and culturally important.
> The sad thing is Americans believe the propaganda that they have freedom and nowhere else does and therefore their restrictions on speech aren’t real but others are.
I would say the sad thing is anti-US sentiment can be so high that people won't debate something like this in good faith and look at the various cases and histories.
Challenge one: Could it be that previous commenter touched certain dogma? (One possible definition from Wikipedia: “Dogma, in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform”)
Challenge two: please try to stretch the definition of “censorship” a bit till you can say that USA has SOME censorship, maybe in disguise. (One possible definition from Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.”)
(No need to report results or reply / just try the exercise for elasticity of the mind)
BTW. A bit related, hopefully interesting, random fact you did not ask for:
“Freedom” is defined quite differently by people in different countries. While the U.S. often focuses on freedom from government interference, in France, freedom also includes the idea that the government has a role in ensuring social justice and protecting individual rights, and in Baltic countries the freedom usually means freedom from a certain country.
Maybe, but in my experience it's usually the dominating factor. Anti-US sentiment can be high, and a lot of people from western countries are skeptical that the US can be any more free than their own in any capacity.
> Challenge one: Could it be that previous commenter touched certain dogma?
I don't believe so. The comment I replied to was using state schools banning some books as an example, even though I mention that in my comment and explain why it doesn't apply.
You'd have to be clear on what you think the dogma here might be, but whatever it may be I'm confident my position is backed by facts and reason.
> Challenge two: please try to stretch the definition of “censorship” a bit till you can say that USA has SOME censorship, maybe in disguise.
I never claimed the US has no censorship, just that it has a lot more freedom due to cultural and legal reasons in contexts like we are discussing here.
> No need to report results or reply / just try the exercise for elasticity of the mind)
Critical thinking is an important step in reasoning and a great way to keep a mind sharp, for sure.
> “Freedom” is defined quite differently by people in different countries. While the U.S. often focuses on freedom from government interference, in France, freedom also includes the idea that the government has a role in ensuring social justice and protecting individual rights, and in Baltic countries the freedom usually means freedom from a certain country.
That is interesting. I would say that latter definition applies in the US as well though. For example, we all expect to be free of crime due to police and such, even if that expectation is not always met.
> there are democracies in Europe where its fine to jail people for what they write online.
And? You seem to believe that a democracy refers to a bundle of freedoms that you personally believe everyone should have. Democracy means governance by the will of the majority. If the majority want people to be jailed based on their writings or speech, than that's what happens in a democratic country.
if thats your definition then a lot of countries where the majority tribe is in a form of dictatorial power are also democracies
They were charged for money loundering...
But is there a possibility there is a distinction between "I can freely share my political opinions about things" versus "I can ask/cheer on people to commit crimes without consequence"?
I think that ship has sailed. Malaysia certainly isn't the first to pull this.
Seems unlikely, not suprising it got flagged to death, however it's there for anyone with ShowDead enabled to read.
I was responding to one speculation, with another, to show that the parent speculation — that censorship of LGBT information would lead to more death by denying sexually active people in the LGBT community with information on STI prevention drugs — was over simplifying the factors involved, to present their speculation as a matter of fact.
If my comment — which I disclosed as mere speculation — is to be censored on those grounds, the parent comment should definitely have been.
I'm still not sold on the notion that limiting public infomation reduces the incidence of gay sex in a society; the Victorians famously did that and ended up with Polari, rent boys, Green Carnations, and generally no end of coded communication.
It made the puritans feel better but did little good otherwise.
Regardless, censorship is not the path to a healthy society and should be rejected on principle.
If a society is looking to decrease STI infection rates I don't see why they'd limit focus to LGBT material and expect any kind of useful result.
When AIDs first appeared Australia made public health announcements addressing all forms of sex as AIDs wasn't limit to male-to-male sexual transmission either, that was merely the demographic pool that STI first appeared in.
But as you point out, STIs aren’t confined to any one group, so focusing exclusively on MSM activity would be a mistake.
With respect to HIV, its prevalence among MSM is 20 to 30 times higher than in the general population.
In 2022, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continued to experience significantly higher rates of STIs that non-Indigenous Australians.
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are diagnosed with chlamydia two times more frequently than non-Indigenous people. For gonorrhoea and syphilis, the rate is more than five times as high.
This all points to the need for better community outreach programs to better inform specific communities, etc.
“The majority decided it. That’s not censorship.”
“The law decided it. That’s not censorship.”
“The users decided it. That’s not censorship.”
“You were just scared your neighbors would kill you, so you didn’t say anything. That’s not censorship.”
I’m having trouble drawing lines.
I’m not opposed to all censorship. I’m just opposed to refusing to acknowledge it for what it is.
If you have your comment flagged by a couple of people, and removed, that is censorship. Plain and simple.
I know you were implying the opposite, but how many suicides are you going to prevent by making Malaysia’s rate (6/100k) similar to the US (14/100k)?
These are generalized rates, of course, but in point of fact, your claim is not substantiated by any real data.
Either you think that the majority of the population in Malaysia or the US identify identify as LGBT+ or you're really struggling with basic statistics and reasoning.
> prevent by making Malaysia’s rate (6/100k) similar to the US (14/100k)?
Presumably the idea would be to reduce it to some number lower than 6. Or do you believe the majority of people in the US are killing themselves because of "Awareness and acceptance on LGBT matters"?
If the idea is to reduce it below 6 by preventing a few suicides per year (which is not likely), how confident are you that destroying the culture of the nation in the process will not cause the number to rise to 14?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajcp.12553
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362...
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/#support-youth
There's plenty more if you care to just Google it.
The rest of your comment is ridiculous because obviously there is more than one contributing factor to suicide. Including (perhaps) latitude.
I’ve read about it in depth.
Encouraging people to be LGBT has resulted in massive increases in number of people claiming to be trans, for example. Assuming they have the “best” case scenario of an affirming home, apparently 14% attempt suicide, according to your third link.
Now let me ask you, how many people have we killed by “affirming” these things to the point that it’s actually cool to be trans in most schools?
We’re driving up the denominator on the highest risk category for suicide while pretending that that very thing will reduce suicide.
>in point of fact, your claim is not substantiated by any real data.
I have provided data. You just avoided commenting on it entirely and responded with a theoretical, opinionated "question". The reason is obvious to any reader: You're wrong. Otherwise, where is your data!?
Anyways... science aside... it's not even like this is a controversial idea. You're actually challenging the idea that people feel better about their lives when they feel supported. Really? What a weird thing to suggest. There's a reason people like you get downvoted (or "censored" as you put it). It's because you don't engage honestly. You aren't driven by science but ideology and no amount of data will change your mind.