# The UK (and Europe's) free speech problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [July 21, 2025, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153 "2025-07-21T16:10:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/401 "2025-12-11T16:32:14Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Because firstly, the claim about the two games only works all else being equal. We would need to evaluate all of the rules to see which is fairer overall. That would be true _if and only if_ the comparison is made between free speech as it is under the Trump admin vs free speech as it is under the Stramer admin. That’s not the comparison I made at any point in time, and while I haven’t read the whole thread, I don’t see that the OP makes that claim either. The comparison I made is between the _legal framework_ of the United States vs the _legal framework_ of the United Kingdom; and the reason I made that comparison is in response to you bringing up the _legal framework_ of North Korea, which you said did “the bestest” job of protecting free speech on paper. I pointed out that this is not true, on paper or otherwise, because even on paper, the constitution of North Korea has a glaring hole, that being the fact that it contains provisions saying that they can ignore anything it says in order to maintain a Monolithic Ideological System. > [@Mijin](#): > > Secondly the title of this thread is about countries, not rules, so in the analogy we’d be making a claim about _casinos_. Cool, I didn’t write the title of the thread nor do I have any interest in defending it. The _only_ argument I have made is about systems. When I joined the conversation, the discussion was about systems (specifically, the claim that North Korea’s system protects free speech “on paper”, which is a completely ridiculous claim if you look at what the North Korean legal system says for even 5 minutes). ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/402 "2025-12-11T16:53:35Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > _I never made any of these claims_, so if you want to keep arguing against a strawman, you’re welcome to do so until you tucker out and fall asleep. But that’s got less than nothing to do with any argument I’ve made, in this thread or otherwise. Well, the title of the thread is basically ‘(The current session of) Game A has a cheating problem’. There isn’t really any ambiguity. If you didn’t want to engage with that, why enter the thread at all? > [@Babale](#): > > That’s never been my claim. I agree that it’s a stupid claim to make. Sure, but the point remains that that’s the claim in the OP: > [@griffin1977](#): > > The way the US defines free speech and other fundamental rights, as a concise, (relatively) unabigous set of absolute statements is a really good thing. **That actually protects peoples rights** , such as the right to free speech, far better than the more verbose, more ambiguous, and more wishy washy, alternatives used in other countries, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. The claim being made here is that you can’t cheat as much in game B as is happening in the current session of game A, because the rules prevent it, yet there is actively more cheating going on. The US constitution _does not actually_ protect people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible, _because the situation regarding rights is actually worse in the US_. > [@Babale](#): > > Trump is a product of the American culture and electorate, not the American legal code. The hate movement he champions may very well be: in a country where the legal code protects against such hate speech, it’s possible that such a movement would not have reached the critical mass it did. You’re arguing against the NK example by pointing to additional legislation that attenuates the human rights protections in the constitution; this is the same thing. It’s the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance): if you protect intolerance well enough, it will eventually destroy tolerance. > [@Babale](#): > > Look at that - even the original poster is not making the claim you said the OP made. Yes, the goalposts have been moving rapidly throughout the thread. The reality, however, remains: the OP made a claim about superior rights protection in the US as compared to Europe thanks to the US constitution that is, simply, factually false. > [@Babale](#): > > You _really_ showed that strawman what’s what, though. I have addressed the argument that I think is most interesting, and most worthy of debate. If you want to argue about which ancient piece of parchment has the prettier words, then that’s just not something I can muster a great deal of enthusiasm about. > [@griffin1977](#): > > No that’s not even slightly to what was claimed. The analogy @Babale post is exactly right. If Game A has rules that stop the dealer taking your cards back if you play a hand he doesn’t like, and Game B does not then the rules of Game A are fairer than the rules of Game B. That just isn’t what you said, though. Your claim was that there’s more taking back of cards (or what have you) going on in one game over the other, because the superior rules prevent it, but that’s just not the case. If you now want to walk back that claim to say that there’s no free speech deficit in UK/Europe as compared to the US, then I’m fine with that, of course. If that wasn’t your claim to begin with, then you could’ve just reacted to my cites showing the worse human rights record of the US by saying that that’s beside the point, you’re not talking about the _actual_ human rights situation, but about words on parchment. (Also, it would be rather pointless to post all the examples of UK infringements you did—you can’t both say it’s about the rules, and not about the play when I’m bringing up the play in the US, while pointing to the gameplay in the UK when it suits you.) In which case I would’ve just bowed out of the thread, because that’s not a terribly interesting topic of conversation to me, as compared to actual rights infringement of actual people in the actual world. But of course, that’s not what you did. ---
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/403 "2025-12-11T17:04:37Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > **free speech protection is far weaker in the UK than the US** It depends on whose free speech we are talking about. Foreigners free speech is not protected when they try to enter the USA, even if they only want to watch a football game. Woe them if they ever posted something bad about the Dear Supreme Leader: > **[Tourists to US would have to reveal five years of social media activity under...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/10/tourists-social-media-trump)** > > Plan would apply to countries not currently required to get visas to the US, including Britain and France > The mandatory new disclosures (not yet in force, it is only trumps plan - my remark) would apply to the 42 countries whose nationals are currently permitted to enter the US without a visa, including longtime US allies Britain, France, Australia, Germany and Japan. > **[Trump plan for World Cup tourists to reveal social media activity described...](https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/dec/11/trump-plan-for-world-cup-tourists-to-reveal-social-media-activity-described-as-chilling)** > > A plan to require fans travelling to the US for the World Cup to disclose information about their social media accounts has been described as ‘chilling’ > [@Thing.Fish](#): > > I generally think that laws against hate speech are good and that we don’t gain anything by allowing people to run around in public waving Nazi flags and promoting stochastic terrorism. > > On the other hand, it can lead to situations like we see in Britain, where the Starmer government has made a fool of itself by outlawing an organization that _isn’t_ almost universally agreed to be evil. Seconded. That a good law is badly applied does not speak against the law. It speaks against the ones applying it in bad faith. Or in stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/404 "2025-12-11T17:07:21Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > If you didn’t want to engage with that, why enter the thread at all? Because I saw a claim that was so ignorant it nearly made me fall out of my seat - the claim that the North Korean constitution protects free speech “on paper”. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The US constitution _does not actually_ protect people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible I didn’t read the whole thread, but the bit you quoted at least does not say that “_the US constitution protects people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible_.” Is there somewhere else where the OP _does_ say that, or is this strawman crafted from whole ~~cloth~~ straw? > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I have addressed the argument that I think is most interesting, and most worthy of debate What “debate” is there to have? Is there even a point of disagreement? You: “The way that Trump tramples on free speech using extrajudicial means sure is disgusting.” Mijin: “Ayup.” Me: “Ayup.” Griffin: “Ayup.” Truly a Great Debate. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/405 "2025-12-11T17:12:37Z")
At least in theory, the powers of the USA’s federal and state governments are limited by their respective constitutions; especially the federal government is in (widely flouted) principle supposed to have no power not granted it. By contrast, the UK Parliament is sovereign: in theory it could enact _ **anything** _ whatsoever, limited only by the consciences of the MPs and/or what would spark a civil war. So while Britain in practice has a long tradition of rights, those are heavily modified by what the government there feels is “reasonable” to the preservation of social order. IOW, the UK takes the maxim that freedom of speech doesn’t extend to shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, and considers the country as a whole the theater, and makes judgements about what constitutes shouting “fire!”. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/406 "2025-12-11T17:16:00Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Because I saw a claim that was so ignorant it nearly made me fall out of my seat - the claim that the North Korean constitution protects free speech “on paper”. I mean, their paper does say that free speech is protected just as much as the American paper does (and it even adds further protections!). There are additional bits that can be interpreted as circumventing this—but that wasn’t the question. And such bits are present in the American constitution as well, see the whole ‘unitary executive’ business. > [@Babale](#): > > Is there somewhere else where the OP _does_ say that, or is this strawman crafted from whole ~~cloth~~ straw? I don’t know what to tell you: the bit I quoted literally says that the US constitutions ‘actually protects’ the rights far better than the ECHR. But actual rights in the US are worse off, so that’s not true. I sincerely don’t know how to read that differently. > [@Babale](#): > > What “debate” is there to have? Is there even a point of disagreement? > > You: “The way that Trump tramples on free speech using extrajudicial means sure is disgusting.” While that’s true, it doesn’t really have anything to do with basically anything I’ve been posting, so I think we may have a gap in understanding here that’s too wide to cross. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/407 "2025-12-11T17:23:35Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I mean, their paper does say that free speech is protected just as much as the American paper does (and it even adds further protections!). Only if you ignore the part of their paper that says that they can ignore any other part of their paper in order to ensure the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System. If you don’t ignore that, then their papers in fact do not protect you at all. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > There are additional bits that can be interpreted as circumventing this—but that wasn’t the question. Those “additional bits” are part of their constitutional framework, so you cant really ignore that. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > And such bits are present in the American constitution as well, see the whole ‘unitary executive’ business. Unitary Executive Theory is a fringe legal theory used to interpret the constitution in a way that gives the executive as much power as possible. It’s not part of the American legal code in the same way that the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System are. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I don’t know what to tell you: the bit I quoted literally says that the US constitutions ‘actually protects’ the rights far better than the ECHR. But actual rights in the US are worse off, so that’s not true. I sincerely don’t know how to read that differently. You _do_ realize that what you’ve now shifted the goals to is _not at all the same thing_ as: _the US constitution protects people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible_ Right? If you’d said what I just quoted originally, I wouldn’t have argued with you. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > While that’s true, it doesn’t really have anything to do with basically anything I’ve been posting Fair enough, it was @Mijin who was complaining about Trump strong arming universities and businesses into censoring people - the extrajudicial means that I think we can all agree are disgusting - not you. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/408 "2025-12-11T17:27:34Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > the title of this thread is about countries, not rules, so in the analogy we’d be making a claim about _casinos_ The analogy still works with casinos. You have Texas Holdem Cowboy Casino on one side of the street, on the other Royal Casino and Medieval Banquet Hall. The house rules at THCC explicitly say the dealer cannot take cards back after the hand has been dealt, its written right there on a big poster on the wall, rule #1. There is no such house rule at RCMBH. Fundamentally that makes the rules at THCC objectively better and more fair than the rules at RCMBH. Yeah the dealer at RCMBH is the dull but fair “Normal” Kier and the dealer at THCC is the untrustworthy thieving scumbag “cheatin’” Donald. But that doesn’t make the rules at THCC any worse, in fact it only highlights how important they are. Cheatin Donald would absolutely love to take your cards back, he curses and says so everytime you get a winning hand. But he doesn’t because it says he can’t right there , rule #1 on the wall. And over at RCMBH “normal” Kier does take your cards back even though no one thinks he’s trying to cheat, for some reason he thinks hands with a red queen are indecent and insists on swapping them out for black number cards. That’s unfair and wouldn’t be allowed at THCC. And if even normal Kier does that what is Donald’s equally untrustworthy cousin Nigel going to do when he gets to be dealer? He’s clearly angling for the dealer gig after Kier. Yeah there are ways Donald cheats that aren’t prevented by the house rules at THCC, like not shuffling fairly. But that’s not the fault of the rule #1 and there’s nothing in the rules at RCMBH about shuffling. So that’s not an argument against Rule #1 or it’s efficacy. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/409 "2025-12-11T17:53:06Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Unitary Executive Theory is a fringe legal theory used to interpret the constitution in a way that gives the executive as much power as possible. Every application of the constitution necessarily interprets it. And under the current interpretation of the Supreme Court (whose interpretation of the constitution _is_ the constitution) that constitutes a significant attack on the first amendment, at least by [this article](https://verfassungsblog.de/turn-against-free-speech-america/)’s reasoning: > [@](#): > > To comprehend the true crisis of freedom of speech in the United States, one must appreciate the extent to which our current Supreme Court, to which Trump has contributed three appointments, has bolstered Trump’s megalomaniacal ambitions by thoughtlessly endorsing vast extensions of the so-called [unitary executive theory](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5122594). […] The Court’s unitary executive theory has reached the readily predictable consequence of radically undermining the rule of law. […] And now, this week, the Trump Administration has taken direct aim at the First Amendment, the foundation stone of our democracy. Likewise, if the right interpretation carries the day, then the protections of free speech in the NK constitution can be superseded. Sure, there is clearly much more intent behind the wording, here: but that’s a difference in degree, not in kind. > [@Babale](#): > > You _do_ realize that what you’ve now shifted the goals to is _not at all the same thing_ as: > > _the US constitution protects people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible_ Again, I don’t see what you seem to be reading into this. This says that the US is protected against rights infringement on the level of Europe, as in that sort of thing doesn’t happen. But it does, and worse. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/410 "2025-12-11T18:03:39Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Likewise, if the right interpretation carries the day, then the protections of free speech in the NK constitution can be superseded. Sure, there is clearly much more intent behind the wording, here: but that’s a difference in degree, not in kind. If you think the differences between the North Korean constitution and the American constitution are ones of “degree, not kind” then there will never be a meeting of the minds here. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/411 "2025-12-11T18:06:23Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > That would be true _if and only if_ the comparison is made between free speech as it is under the Trump admin vs free speech as it is under the Stramer admin. > That’s not the comparison I made at any point in time, and while I haven’t read the whole thread, I don’t see that the OP makes that claim either. The OP is a comparison between the two countries’ / continents freedom of speech. So yes, I am engaging with it, and explaining why it is both logically flawed and demonstrably false. In any case, the post that you are quoting, was my response to @griffin1977‘s analogy, in which he talked about one game being more fair than the other game, because of a different rule. But, even in the analogy, we could only say that after we’ve looked at the rules in their totality – it shows the opposite of the point he was trying to make. > [@Babale](#): > > The comparison I made is between the _legal framework_ of the United States vs the _legal framework_ of the United Kingdom; and the reason I made that comparison is in response to you bringing up the _legal framework_ of North Korea, which you said did “the bestest” job of protecting free speech on paper. And I stopped talking about north korea many posts ago because I saw you were using this for a bad faith tactic. The simple point is that what the law says is irrelevant if it is not actually being followed in practice. Instead of just acknowledging the point, you’ve focused on spinning the 10 tenets part, even biting the bullet and claiming that vague statements about national pride is the same thing as explicitly declaring the death sentence for coming out as gay. > [@Babale](#): > > Cool, I didn’t write the title of the thread nor do I have any interest in defending it. The _only_ argument I have made is about systems. You’re responding to a post that wasn’t even addressed to you. So…WTF? I’m not allowed to discuss the OP with the person who posted it, because you have decreed we must talk about something else? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/412 "2025-12-11T18:07:12Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > If you think the differences between the North Korean constitution and the American constitution are ones of “degree, not kind” then there will never be a meeting of the minds here. Again, it’s a mystery to me how you could think that’s anything close to what I said. But I think by now I should accept that pattern and just move on. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/413 "2025-12-11T18:11:37Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Again, it’s a mystery to me how you could think that’s anything close to what I said. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Likewise, if the right interpretation carries the day, then the protections of free speech in the NK constitution can be superseded. Sure, there is clearly much more intent behind the wording, here: but that’s a difference in degree, not in kind. What phrase did you use earlier? > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I sincerely don’t know how to read that differently. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/414 "2025-12-11T18:15:57Z")
Well, see, that’s the trouble right there: you’re either saying that honestly, or not. In both cases, I don’t see how any further interaction could be fruitful. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/415 "2025-12-11T18:16:52Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > So what is this magical imaginary form of free speech that is protected by the British constitution and not the American Constitution? I dunno what the laws say, but following my argument above that actual practice matters more than exactly what’s written on the books: i don’t see the UK asking me to tell them everything I’ve ever said on social media, to use that to exclude me from traveling there. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/416 "2025-12-11T18:18:06Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, see, that’s the trouble right there: you’re either saying that honestly, or not. In both cases, I don’t see how any further interaction could be fruitful. Well, that’s precisely how I felt when you used the phrase earlier, so yeah, we can be done here. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/417 "2025-12-11T18:20:28Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But, even in the analogy, we could only say that after we’ve looked at the rules in their totality – it shows the opposite of the point he was trying to make But it doesn’t. In both the analogy and real life. The rule that says the dealer can’t takes your cards back means the dealer doesn’t take your cards back. The constitutional amendment that says the government can’t pass a law infringing your freedom of speech means the government doesn’t pass any laws infringing your freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/418 "2025-12-11T18:25:23Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > actual practice matters more than exactly what’s written on the books You keep claiming that yet have repeatedly failed to come up with a single example of that. You posting an article by some guys online where they came up with some numbers for sociological metrics that say _absolutely nothing_ about government infringement of free speech. This statement is simply not true, and there is no evidence to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/419 "2025-12-11T18:26:05Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Well, that’s precisely how I felt when you used the phrase earlier, so yeah, we can be done here. Oh, I’ve said nothing about being done (again with the reading comprehension), I’ll still argue my position, just without any expectation of constructive engagement on your part. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153/420 "2025-12-11T18:26:55Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But it doesn’t. In both the analogy and real life. The rule that says the dealer can’t takes your cards back means the dealer doesn’t take your cards back. The constitutional amendment that says the government can’t pass a law infringing your freedom of speech means the government doesn’t pass any laws infringing your freedom of speech. But then you went on to make the claim that one **game** is more fair than the other **game**. But what about the other rules? Are we to assume they are identical? That’s the first problem. The second is that it’s irrelevant anyway if the rules are not being followed. The OP claimed that the 1A “ **actually** protects peoples rights” (emphasis added). When presented with the many, many counter-examples (and they are coming on a daily basis now), it’s shifted to some meaningless claim about the US being better if it were following its own laws, and the problem is Europe doesn’t have a law that is being ignored anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-and-europes-free-speech-problem/1021153.md?page=22)