[–] dennis_jeeves2 1 day ago
[–] balderdash 1 day ago
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-i...
[–] andriy_koval 1 day ago
[–] chaostheory 2 days ago
[–] yanhangyhy 2 days ago
what troubles me is why 'humor' is the most important thing? shouldn't be the action/output of the gov? i mean, you vote someone, he promise something, he cannot do it, he breaks the law, then nothing happens, you make fun of him. then after 4 yeras, you select another person. and go on. Biden didn't get punised for what he has not achieved. So will Trump.
how does that improve your life? how can people live like this? how is that 'democray'? its very hard for our people to understand.
our neighbor counties like Mongoel and Philippines, they have a system like USA, and the popeople can make fun of their leaders all the time, i can see that from reddit. but they basiclly live in a shit hole, with a small populartion and vast resources, and they are poor than average chinese. i never understand the deulusion of them.
[–] jgilias 2 days ago
1. There’s no freedom of speech;
2. Which implies there’s no freedom of thought;
3. There’s no separation of powers. Meaning, there’s really no “politicians”, just the ruling “nomenklatura”;
Which is fine-ish as long as the nomenklatura is benign and competent enough. It becomes problematic when (not if) the nomenklatura stops being competent. This can happen naturally because people age, still cling to power, and/or they care about their children, so they try to push them into plush nomenklatura jobs regardless of how dense their offspring might be. This is btw happening in China right now as far as I know.
When that happens, because of 1. and 2., as well as the “repression muscle” that the government has, change becomes near impossible, as you have no leverage for change outside the nomenklatura, but the nomenklatura resists it because it’s suicidal for them. Then you start stagnating and/or getting pulled into pointless wars that the nomenklatura starts to “rally the flag”.
[–] yanhangyhy 2 days ago
To take a simple example: China is currently carrying out its most severe anti-corruption campaign in decades. Five-Year Plans are still being executed, support for low-income groups is being passionately discussed across social media, and according to various reports, the government has already begun addressing disparities in the pension system.
I’m not denying anything you said. But you seem to overlook the fact that we live in a world where we are merely comparing degrees of dysfunction. The Chinese government is deeply flawed, and the US government is deeply flawed as well. So much so that those of us who use VPNs to scale the firewall are honestly tired of watching people on the outside indulge in the illusion of freedom without any desire for real change. People often fail to see that, fundamentally, both are societies controlled by privileged classes—the distinction between autocracy and democracy is far less meaningful than it appears. At least in China, most people aren't suffocated by rent, don't have to worry about mobs rioting, looting, or committing arson(ok i am talking what happening in France, i dont know whats wrong with these stupid people), and don't have to fear the ravages of drugs, walk safely in the night, enjoy comforatable public transport(the point is , if a country dont have this but have the freedom to make jokes of their leaders, i dont think most of us will move there). As for those dissatisfied with society, they can emigrate(i guess the number is clear, most people travel aboard and see the world will still lives in china), or they can use a VPN to explore the outside world and discover the truth for themselves. Likewise, outsiders can visit to see the real China.
As part of a generation raised to believe that America was a beacon of civilization—which is how the media educated us, even if the government didn't say so directly—watching the outside world turn into what it is today brings us just as much pain as it brings you. The Prism scandal happened, and yet no one learned a thing. ( i have to use gemini to translate as my writen english is not so good)
[–] jgilias 1 day ago
> It’s fine-ish as long as the nomenklatura is benign and competent enough.
[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago
[–] chaostheory 1 day ago
Being able to criticize your government is a fundamental freedom that can help curb things like corruption or change policy direction. Humor is a very direct and blunt form or criticism
As for your examples of democratic countries that are still not so great places, I’m pretty sure they would be even worse without their democratic freedom to criticize their respective governments
[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago
in an ideal world, yes. but with geopolicts, no. Like i see tons of USA news claims china is interven USA election. or Russia. I would say the truth for these contries are much horriable than it looks.
[–] nozzlegear 1 day ago
Democracy (in the US) is the whole system, not just the president. Biden didn't achieve everything he promised because he was in contention with the senators and representatives that were also elected by the people; same for Trump. It's checks and balances, the president can't do everything he wants because he gets checked by Congress and the courts; Congress can't do everything they want because they get checked by the president and the courts. Trump is straining that right now but that's the soul of American democracy – one guy doesn't decide it all, they must cooperate with Congress.
We'll see the system turn against Trump after the November election, when democrats are expected to take the house and probably the senate back from Trump's party. That's democracy in action: people are extremely unhappy with how Trump is handling things, so they're punishing him by voting in representatives who promise to rein him in.
[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago
Then i have no respect for the people in USA
[–] nozzlegear 1 day ago
[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago
[–] guelo 2 days ago
[–] MaxHoppersGhost 2 days ago
[–] protocolture 2 days ago
This is a weird metric of freedom. It seems more like a reflexive, zeitgeist based response than any actual freedom metric.
In my experience the country with the most freedom is Canada. I have never seen anything like it. It's just so easy to do business there. Even if it wasn't that the laws enable it (they do) but even the way people operate. Being able to have a discussion with a customer without 12 rounds of a solicitor trying to insert dumb loopholes into a contract, costing the potential customer more in billable hours to their solicitor than the cost of the contract.
The USA is just junk. States that want to be Feds, Feds that want to be States, and when you cut through all the red tape you still have to deal with Litigious, ignorant Americans. Oh and if you want to import or export something just forget it.
"Oh but we have guns" is basically the exception that proves the rule, in a country where people get detained for such crimes as "Being beloved childrens author Mem Fox" or "Said naughty things on reddit" or "Working while waiting for Immigration to sort their status out".
But guns right. Guns. Woohoo freedom yeehaw guns.
[–] blitzar 2 days ago
You suggesting that in the name of freedom - everyone must have air conditioning and cool their homes to 60F?
[–] nozzlegear 1 day ago
[–] krior 2 days ago
[–] skinfaxi 2 days ago
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
[–] itake 2 days ago
I’m on my phone, so it’s a little bit difficult for me to find clear examples, but I think this post talks about some of those freedom of speech violations.
I might be completely wrong, but it seems like news articles are not repeating the messages that caused the arrest. They just seem to be reporting that the arrest happened and high-level description of the content.
[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago
[–] ChrisRR 2 days ago
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
People can say whatever they want without hurting anyone. In the case of incitement of violence, the issue is the person(s) who actually committed the violence, not a tweet online.
[–] Timwi 1 day ago
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
I'd compare "inciting violence" to a woman dressing in provocative clothing in a bad area of town late at night. Very few people would blame the woman and say she's legally responsible if she's attacked, I hold the same line on speech.
Say what you want, dress how you want, it doesn't matter. If another person actually causes harm they can't shirk the blame off on you, they made the choice to commit violence.
[–] sdoering 2 days ago
[–] Timwi 1 day ago
[–] braincat31415 1 day ago
Here is one of the latest cases, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz1qy30v5o Here is another one: "West Midlands Police arrested a 15-year-old boy named Fraser on August 3, 2026, after he published Facebook posts mocking Conservative Wolverhampton City Council member Simon Bennett." ...after posting an image of a politician with the bunny ears.
[–] Timwi 1 day ago
Who defines what is murder and what is self-defence? You already know the answer to this. The legislature.
Your first link is about police misconduct, not what the laws are or should be. Your second quote does not contain any of the relevant posts and just spews random unverifiable claims.
[–] braincat31415 1 day ago
In other words, whoever is at power at the moment. There is no constitutional protection.
"police misconduct"... The OP said "It is a common misconception... that people are arrested and jailed for making jokes or otherwise casually chatting on social media". I gave you an example to the contrary. I do follow the UK news, and it's not hard to come up with multiple similar examples, there is no need to gaslight me. UK democracy has been somewhat waning lately.
As for the bunny ears story, not spews but says -- and type the headline into google, you'll get multiple sources. It is verifiable, you are just afraid to check lest it is actually true. Try harder.
(\_/)
( •.• )
c(")_(")[–] MaxHoppersGhost 2 days ago
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
[–] grafmax 2 days ago
Funny how China leads in most tech areas now.
Turns out letting monopoly capital control your government policy leads to short term gains at the expense of long term viability. Maybe the VCs can make some money off government surveillance and defense contracts before being completely eclipsed?
https://www.aspi.org.au/news/aspis-critical-technology-track...
[–] chaostheory 2 days ago
[–] cowlevel 1 day ago
China calls its government a State Council, Russia calls theirs a Duma, and the USA calls its one Microsoft. (Or Oracle, or Disney, or S&P 500...)
[–] ChrisRR 2 days ago
[–] Freedom2 2 days ago
[–] BeetleB 2 days ago
In a number of states, you need to take a safety course before you're allowed to purchase a gun.
Compare that with the 1st amendment. If they passed laws saying "You can say whatever you want in public, but only after you've taken this course that informs you on what is acceptable and unacceptable to say in public", would you say there is free speech?
Or "You are free to practice any religion, but only after you've taken a course that ..."?
[–] lelandfe 2 days ago
> The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.
Before the 14th Amendment, your hypothetical was quite possible at a state level.
[–] tenuousemphasis 2 days ago
[–] BeetleB 2 days ago
But let's not say the 1st and 2nd amendments in the same breath. One is real, and the other is much less so.
[–] V__ 2 days ago
[–] tastyfreeze 2 days ago
[–] quantified 2 days ago
See citizens and ICE.
[–] MaxHoppersGhost 2 days ago
Stop making stuff up.
[–] lp0_on_fire 2 days ago
In the US at least automatic weapons are nominally legal at the federal level after hefty tax stamps and background checks but states / local jurisdictions can and do regulate more / outright ban them.
[–] Loughla 2 days ago
They're still not illegal, as OP said.
[–] chaostheory 2 days ago
[–] platevoltage 2 days ago
[–] dennis_jeeves2 1 day ago
[–] vrganj 2 days ago
You should ask Alex Pretti how he was able to criticize to criticize the government without repercussion.
[–] majorchord 2 days ago
His death had nothing to do with the Constitution, it was because of a trigger-happy, confused cop who had his back to the guy, then noticed a gun next to him (that another officer previously put there). The US government had no part in that situation at all.
[–] vrganj 2 days ago
The constitution is just some rules people wrote up generations ago. It's not a magic spell that has power by itself, it is only effective as a social contract as long as power structures agree to follow it.
If armed government enforcers break it with impunity, what good is it?
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
What are cops if they're not the government? Are they private corporations?
[–] majorchord 2 days ago
Of course cops are the government, but they're also humans that make mistakes and commit crimes themselves. But this isn't actually related to some greater constitutional crisis or anything, unless you have some evidence that suggests they were instructed to act the way they did... but I've never seen anyone come forward with that yet.
[–] vrganj 2 days ago
You have government officials tyranizing the population and now the argument is "of course it can't prevent that".
What good is it then?
[–] majorchord 1 day ago
I think the key point is that it allows this "petitioning" of the government in the first place, that's what it's good for. But you still have to go through the court system to right any wrongs, which includes misbehaving police who may be breaking the law themselves.
The Constitution is not a judge, jury or executioner, so in a way it was always "limited" in what it can do if it's not actually respected.
[–] nullstyle 2 days ago
[–] platevoltage 2 days ago
[–] stldev 2 days ago
[–] seanw444 2 days ago
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
[–] lp0_on_fire 2 days ago
It’s not a blank check to run over people holding signs you don’t like as you drive home from work.
[–] majorchord 2 days ago
> Under French law and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), authorities may prohibit particular demonstrations when serious public-order risks make restrictions necessary and proportionate. They cannot impose an indiscriminate prohibition on peaceful assemblies simply because previous demonstrations have descended into violence.
[–] seanw444 2 days ago
[–] protocolture 2 days ago
Lmao. Jim Tyranny has had what? 3 cracks at him? Hardly protection.
[–] billfor 2 days ago
[–] jgilias 2 days ago