[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
It isn’t limited to defamation, either. It is harder to get a protest permit in the UK as well, for example.
[/QUOTE]
I hate doing this, but: cite?
2,000 demonstrations on one day in Parliament Square. ETA: and that was just to protest that permits were required!
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Well, of course. I’m just annoyed by BobLibDem’s assertion that we don’t have freedom of speech here in America because a few people decided not to patronize the Dixie Chicks because of their political statements. That’s simply nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
I actually have never heard of anyone complaining that people didn’t buy their CDs. I have heard people complaining that the owners of radio stations on the publicly owned airwaves refused to play their records and organized bonfires and other such crap. That’s very different.
As for them not having a problem today, that might have something to do with the broad and majority opposition to the war. That George Clooney could make Thank you and Good Night doesn’t mean that McCarthyism never happened.
As for the OP, there are so many dimensions of freedom that I think it is futile to try to order reasonably free countries. There are indicators of lack of freedom, but none of the countries in question fall under that.
I think that the claim that the US is the most free is another example of our exceptionalism, just like the claim that we have the best healthcare system.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Being put on a terrorist watch list comes to mind. Getting strip seached at airports. Having your phone tapped and e-mail read. Having your boss find an excuse to fire you. Getting beaten in an alley by some patriots.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Specifically, America has a culture of individualism: do whatever you want, it’s not anyone else’s business.
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
HA HA HA, HEE HEE HEE!!! Oh my side hurts!!
Sorry.
First a few caveats:
But… “Do whatever you want, it’s not anyone else’s business.” ??? To me, that sounds more like the Netherlands or other parts of Europe than the USA.
Smoke a joint after work? Go topless to the beach? Visit a prostitute? Get elected to significant public office as an Atheist?"
That shit don’t happen here. We like individualism here as long as everyone does it the same way. Nice and cowboy whitebread Jesus-like.
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
Ultimately, no matter who you are or what your job is, you can quit that job and walk out the door if you want to. You’ll lose your income and have to deal with the consequences of that, but you are always free to make that choice. If the government puts you in jail, you are absolutely not free to leave. They will kill you if you try. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. Dead because you can’t afford medical treatment is just as dead as if your are shot in the face. Or driven to despair and suicide, or dead because you are forced to take a dangerous job, or so on. And severe suffering and deprivation are only arguably better tha being dead; I’d rather put a bullet in my head than end up homeless.
Deleted duplicate post
[QUOTE=jjimm]
I hate doing this, but: cite?
2,000 demonstrations on one day in Parliament Square. ETA: and that was just to protest that permits were required!
[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that permits are required for more types of protests and the process is more challenging. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
I don’t have time to give you a thorough account of comparative law, but here’s a
few cites from various law review articles on the differences in speech protections:
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not really. Dead because you can’t afford medical treatment is just as dead as if your are shot in the face. Or driven to despair and suicide, or dead because you are forced to take a dangerous job, or so on.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so to bring it back to the Dixie Chicks, let’s say they release a new album and it just plain sucks. Selling albums is the Chicks’ only source of income, but the public refuses to buy this one. You are arguing that the Chicks have an absolute right to sell their services for money, regardless of whether anyone else wants to buy those services.
What’s the remedy? I guess you could convict everyone who didn’t buy their album of murder, since declining to pay someone money for their services is equivalent to murdering them. Yes?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course you are more free with such laws. Your employer then has less power to pressure you into, say, dressing like he likes, or in the absence of sexual harassment laws his sexual advances. And those laws were written precisely because your employer has power over you, and just walking away isn’t an option for many or most people.
[/QUOTE]
Making it illegal for an employer to sexually harass employees is a law that curtails a specific freedom in order to gain a specific benefit. In terms of maintaining freedom, this kind of law is always preferable to one that has blanket restrictions for no specific benefit. Remember that employers aren’t all large corporations. I work for a company with one employee…me. Should I be entitled to more freedom than my employer is?
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
Okay, so to bring it back to the Dixie Chicks, let’s say they release a new album and it just plain sucks. Selling albums is the Chicks’ only source of income, but the public refuses to buy this one. You are arguing that the Chicks have an absolute right to sell their services for money, regardless of whether anyone else wants to buy those services.
What’s the remedy? I guess you could convict everyone who didn’t buy their album of murder, since declining to pay someone money for their services is equivalent to murdering them. Yes?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: I said nothing of the sort. The whole point of my argument is about people being fired for reasons that have nothing to do with how good a job they do. And the Dixie Chicks are a bad example; they were still allowed to produce and sell their product.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
AFAIK, I don’t need a license from my government to go anywhere in the world. I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am.
[/QUOTE]
I’m at work so this is totally from memory, but I thought at one time there were travel restrictions on citizens of the UK too go to India and Pakistan. I’m fairly sure there are other restrictions on travel for citizens of the UK…as well as travel restrictions in other countries in Europe (I seem too recall the French had several, for instance). I could be wrong…this is from memory.
I would be surprise though if you, a citizen of the UK, have unlimited travel anywhere in the world any time you like with no restrictions.
For my part, getting a license to go to Cuba was roughly the equivalent of getting a travel visa…it was really not that big a deal. Of course, that might be because I didn’t actually have too do the donkey work too get it.
[QUOTE=kingpengvin]
By aspects I assume you mean like trying to teach it didn’t happen happen in Germany. I guess it is a horrible shame some countries don’t allower deniers to stand out in the street, set up websites or openly teach in their view in a classroom to rally folks to their cause. But in this case I don’t see that limitation as a great loss to humanity.
[/QUOTE]
It IS a horrible shame IMHO. Because I see it as a slippery slope. Who decides what should and shouldn’t be allowed? Based on what?
Regardless, it’s an instance where other countries are ‘less free’ than the US…even if ‘less free’ simply means they are less free to be ignorant (not that banning this or making it illegal has stamped out such denial in Europe).
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s “freedom” bought by passing the costs on to our children. Our extravagance and neglect will be paid for by them more than us, but it will be paid for. How free are they going to be ?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think you are wrong of course…quite the opposite in fact, as I don’t think such extravagant social programs are ultimately not sustainable in Europe. Also, I don’t see it as a lot of freedom when one is bound too take care of ones (myriad) ‘brothers’. That is another debate though. The point is that the majority of US citizens want it the way it is. That being the case, it’s a measure of our ‘freedom’ that we have it the way we want it…as it is a measure of other countries ‘freedom’ that they also have it the way the majority of them want it.
-XT
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I said nothing of the sort.
[/QUOTE]
I stated that being fired by an employer was different than being shot by a jail guard. You replied that it was “not really” different. 
In any case, my apologies for misinterpreting you.
Freedom entails the freedom to get yourself into a crappy situation where you have fewer options. If you don’t feel free because you have a mortgage and your company fires you, that’s due to your own previous freedom.
Freedom, in the US sense, means freedom from the government–i.e. sanctioned violence. Getting yourself stuck into coercive relationships with other private entities does not mean you’re not free, it just means you’re living with the results of freedom, which as stated above, means less security.
That said, we Americans don’t have the same social freedoms as some (consensual crimes and all)–the last bastion of the puritan streak that seems to run through our society.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m at work so this is totally from memory, but I thought at one time there were travel restrictions on citizens of the UK too go to India and Pakistan.
[/quote]
Utter bollocks.
We get government advisories on travel, but not actual restrictions.
I suggest you are wrong.
Perhaps you’d be surprised because your government is repressive in this respect? Find me a single example and I’ll withdraw the statement. Here is the advice offered by my government. That’s “advice” by the way, not a requirement that I ask permission.
Irrelevant: I don’t have to apply to my government to go anywhere in the world I want. You do.
ETA: the above sentence was badly worded. Substitute “anywhere in the world” for “certain places in the world”.
[QUOTE=Flipshod]
Freedom entails the freedom to get yourself into a crappy situation where you have fewer options. If you don’t feel free because you have a mortgage and your company fires you, that’s due to your own previous freedom.
Freedom means freedom from the government–i.e. sanctioned violence. Getting yourself stuck into coercive relationships with other private entities does not mean you’re not free, it just means you’re living with the results of freedom, which as stated above, means less security.
[/QUOTE]
That’s right. This speaks to something I was going to post in response to BobLibDem (in regards to the Dixie Chicks), but didn’t get a chance to, which was that “freedom” is not about not having to live with consequences of your actions. We all make decisions every day about when to speak our mind about things and when not to, based on what we think those consequences might be. This might mean that none of us are completely “free,” but only because we have a desire to live in society, not because we are afraid of the government.
[QUOTE=Flipshod]
Freedom, in the US sense, means freedom from the government–i.e. sanctioned violence. Getting yourself stuck into coercive relationships with other private entities does not mean you’re not free, it just means you’re living with the results of freedom, which as stated above, means less security.
[/QUOTE]
Being stuck in a coercive relationship, regardless of how you got there, IS being less free. Your “logic” allows people to be reduced to what amounts to slavery and still be called free, which is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Utter bollocks.
[/QUOTE]
No need too be hostile…I said I was working from memory. A quick google search turned up this:
I’m not sure what ‘travel restrictions on citizens travelling to India and Pakistan’ means exactly…maybe, as you say, it’s just an advisory.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
We get government advisories on travel, but not actual restrictions.
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe when I read ‘travel restrictions’ I’m reading too much into it then. Again, no need to get hostile.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
suggest you are wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t be the first time. If I am, then why not fight my ignorance instead of taking this tact?
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Perhaps you’d be surprised because your government is repressive in this respect? Find me a single example and I’ll withdraw the statement. Here is the advice offered by my government. That’s “advice” by the way, not a requirement that I ask permission.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I would be.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Irrelevant: I don’t have to apply to my government to go anywhere in the world I want. You do.
[/QUOTE]
Well, there you go…you win. Your government is less repressive and doesn’t have their nasty jackboots on the throats of their citizens.
-XT
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Being stuck in a coercive relationship, regardless of how you got there, IS being less free. Your “logic” allows people to be reduced to what amounts to slavery and still be called free, which is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
As long as you can walk out the door and sell your skills elsewhere, you are not a slave.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Being stuck in a coercive relationship, regardless of how you got there, IS being less free. Your “logic” allows people to be reduced to what amounts to slavery and still be called free, which is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
And your ‘logic’ is, as usual, beyond the ridiculous. But then, you have again let your hyperbole run away with the spoon…
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
No need too be hostile…
[/quote]
Not being hostile, just responding to your rhetorical challenge: “Does this change whether you think we are free now?”
You chose to counter with a position based on blatant ignorance, and I merely bluntly rebutted you.
Rather than misrepresenting my position with overemotional hyperbole, read what I wrote upthread: “I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am.”
Furthermore, I’m not seeking to win. I said in my first post that the answer to the OP is unknowable because everyone has a different definition of freedom.