616 karma · joined May 26, 2011
But I agree with that statement. "Free speech" is often seen as absolute. But it is not absolute. Not even in the US. It never was. And it should not be. There is always a trade-off.
Limits are (copied from Wiki because I am lazy), for example: "libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury"
Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.
I do not know her personally. The overwhelming support for her in the ML community appears to show the opposite. She appears to be highly regarded and well-respected, personally and professionally.
EDIT: Misread and deleted parts.
I feel as a world citizen but I am German; I know the system that was built after the bitter lessons of our history. A proportional representation (with an x% threshold to limit the number of governing parties) is really key to preventing two large parties from dominating everything and becoming the only rivals with the resulting polarisation of the political discourse.
(Free higher education would then be the next step.)
"Dräger: In Europe, the number of intensive-care beds per capita is very unequally distributed. In Italy, it is three times lower than here. In England, five times lower. The challenge in England will be greater than in Spain. And the situation in the U.S. is very alarming. The reporting system there is also underdeveloped."