That's a very common sentiment in eg England.
Americans tend not to realise that their free speech laws are sometimes seen as extreme in Europe.
It's not surprising they used a throwaway, they already got downvoted.
(It wasn't me.)
Americans tend not to realise that their free speech laws are sometimes seen as extreme in Europe.
It's not surprising they used a throwaway, they already got downvoted.
(It wasn't me.)
Unfortunately this means the UK tends to be run for long periods by social conservatives, because that's the only way to get people who are also fiscal conservatives. I don't think you can draw deep conclusions about the value of free speech to people in Europe or the UK when it's so rarely debated.
(British guy speaking here)
For example, you prevent anti-jihad activists like Robert Spencer from entering the UK to speak, but you're perfectly prepared to allow pro-jihad activists to live in the UK and preach hatred of Jews, women, and non-Muslims in general.
This is the problem with limits on freedom of speech - they allow people doing the limiting to ban speech they don't like, for no other reason that they don't like it.
Of course it isn't! They live here, border controls are entirely the wrong tool to use for citizens.
Those border controls are used to prevent many Islamists from coming to the country.
And violent Islamists are dealt with using other laws.
A better example of uneven freedom of speech laws might have been the protections that Jews and Christians had (under racial discrimination laws and blasphemy laws) that were not extended to Muslims.
No, they're banned because their speech is so unpopular amongst a small but violent group of the population, that the Govt. would rather they weren't allowed to speak there.
That's a freedom of speech issue, not a border control issue.
If the Govt. were functioning properly, it would uphold its duty to protect unpopular speech by preventing (or at least attempting to prevent) violence directed at them. Instead, they just close their doors.