I should have put a “just” in there.
That’s true to a point, it’s definitely the case that no system of protecting rights can hold up indefinitely if a faction who actively wants to destroy those rights gains the support of a majority of the electorate 
But that said the American bill of rights is currently holding up pretty well in just those circumstances. It’s all the other stuff that where the government’s powers were not explicitly constrained and they were just given undefined wide ranging authority, with the assumption that the executive branch was a good actor and would use them responsibly, that hasn’t gone so well.
Yeah the though flaw was, it turns out one whole half of the political spectrum was only claiming to base their entire political philosophy on reverence for the constitution. Whereas in fact they never gave two craps about the constitution or freedom or anything else, they just wanted a dictator to do bad things to brown people
Though again despite all that the bill of rights is holding up pretty well, considering. I dread to think what the likes of Farage will do in the UK without that explicit protection.
With people being kidnapped off the streets by masked men, i don’t see how you can feel that “the bill of rights is holding up okay”.
Hell, our life times of hearing that a conviction overturned because of a Constitutional rights violation was overturned on a technicality.
The cancellation (well, ‘indefinite suspension’) of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after his comments on Charlie Kirk’s murder seems like a good study in the difference between free will in theory and practice: without any enforcement, all the laws and protections of free speech are just so much ink on paper.
I agree. And yeah it’s a pretty good example of why the bill of rights alone isn’t enough to stop our descent into fascism.
Though despite that its still a good demonstration of why the bill of rights is a good idea and is definitely helping in practice. Because you know what didn’t happen? Jim Kimmel wasn’t arrested and sent to prison for making a joke the state thought was offensive.
Glasgow Crash 'Joke' Tweet Ends In Arrest For Sunderland Man | HuffPost UK News .
There is a big practical difference between having your show cancelled and being sent to prison. And it’s a very good thing in practice that Americans are protected from the latter. It’s not theoretical, other wannabe dictators have taken advantage of laws like that to oppress their citizens:
Nor was the guy you linked in the 11 year old article. Yes, it seems police went too far with that arrest, but I don’t see that any prosecution followed.
I’m not seeing this as being worse than the wave of firings explicitly called for by senior government and the president himself, actual prison and deportations for protests, and government suing news agencies and universities for saying things they don’t like.
Best as I can tell, he was basically given a stern talking to, not ‘sent to prison’. Whereas the consequence in the Jimmy Kimmel case isn’t really him loosing his show, it’s the silencing of a very publicly visible voice criticizing the administration—it’s not him who’s mainly hurt by this, but the whole landscape of public opinion. Which is of course the intent.
So your freedom of speech in dependent the reasonableness of the police and prosecuting authorities, and their restraint in not enforcing the laws on the books that Infringe free speech.
That is a pretty terrible assumption even if the government in charge of those authorities is not a fascist.
The constitution prevents any and all overzealous police in the US? Good to know.
Regardless, the point is, there’s no comparison between the US and UK right now. Having to scrape the barrel for an arrest (not conviction) from over a decade ago just reinforces that.
Nope but it does explicitly stop them from arresting you and sending you to prison for telling a joke the government find offensive. So it is objectively better at protecting civil rights than the equivalent in the UK and Europe.
This is the key point…
Neither the constitution of the US or the Constitution of the UK protects you from having your show cancelled or other social consequences for expressing an opinion the government finds offensive.
HOWEVER the bill of rights in the US constitution does protect you from being arrested and sent to prison for expressing an opinion the government finds offensive. The constitution of the UK does not. The law that guy was arrested for is punishable by years in prison for an “offensive” communication.
That makes the bill of rights better than than equivalent UK protections at protecting its citizens civil rights from the government. The evidence of this is that Jimmy Kimmel is not in prison
I don’t follow the US news closely, but in this post ( Reluctantly — Fuck Texas - #1017 by smithsb ) reference is made to a student being arrested for mocking (the death of) Kirk. Is this not a violation of the bill of rights? Doesn’t look like she was protected from being arrested.
BTW I agree that the UK law and its application are worrisome, but that doesn’t take away issues like this in the US.
Nope she was arrested for assault….
During a later part of the clip, Booker hit a demonstrator’s hat, shifting it on his head ever so slightly
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this…I don’t see the point of having a malicious communications law on the books, but what I care about is what happens in practice – who actually has freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and a free press.
And it’s pretty clear IMO, since we’re scratching around for years old examples in Europe that are all nowhere near as egregious as the dozens of cases happening in the US every day.
The US consitution is supposed to forbid the government getting involved in free speech though, and it turns out to have offered zero protection to journalists, universities and entertainers in this administration.
e.g. In the case of Kimmel, the broadcast regulator threatened ABC. It wasn’t a free hiring / firing decision.
Say like the hundreds of people were arrested and face jail for saying nice things about Palestine Action:
Ah yes, I’ll concede that one – that’s almost comparable to the arrests + deportations + federal defunding that is happening in the US for Palestinian protests.
That proscribed group thing is a mess.
Maybe mining the net for supportive data points for a given position isn’t the best way to approach this. So let’s again look at data from professional research institutes that have at least tried to define objective metrics by which to assess effective freedom of expression in different countries. Using the methodology of googling “freedom of speech ranking by country” and then looking at the first pages that appeared, I get:
- A page entitled ‘Countries with Freedom of Speech 2025’ at worldpopulationreview.com. The highlighted graphic lists data for a few countries, with the US coming in third, after Norway and Denmark. However, the data shown there is the Future of Free Speech (FoFS) index (link goes to PDF report), which tracks rather the support for free speech in each country. The page links to further data from the Pew Research Center which comes to a similar conclusion: US Americans most strongly support the right to free speech. However, it also shows in the table below the graph the Freedom of Expression Score by the Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD), where the US ranks 28th out of the surveyed countries, behind Germany and the UK, but ahead of e.g. Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands.
- The wikipedia page for the World Press Freedom index as compiled by Reporters Without Borders. The US is classified as ‘problematic’ in 56th place, while most of Europe and Canada rank either ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’.
- The Global Expression Report. Here, at a ranking of 85, the US is in the highest category ‘open’, along with much of Europe; the UK scores only a ‘less restricted’.
- The Freedom House dataset, which ‘rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 208 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report’. Here, the US is ranked 57th, although with a rating of 84 (interestingly with an increasing trend) still classed as ‘free’ (but again trailing behind many European states, Canada, and the UK).
- The Reporters sans Frontieres index—we’ve seen that data already. Most of the further links I found reuse the ‘Vatieties of Democracy’ (V-Dem) data I already posted about above, which seems to be the most widely cited dataset, e.g. here at theglobaleconomy.com. The US here ranks 17th.
In total, I think the lesson we should take away from this is that freedom of expression is under threat globally—‘more than two thirds of us have less freedom of expression than we had a decade ago’, as it is put on globalexpressionreport.org. Largely, this is due to a sustained attack from the right—countries which lag behind in freedom of expression in Europe, e.g. Italy or the Netherlands, have all seen shifts to the right in recent times (and I fear the same is in store for my home country Germany). This is not a UK/Europe problem, but a global issue, and I think can only be properly opposed as such.
Rather than actually giving evidence, like real cases and actual laws, instead let find a guy online who made a list and put numbers on it. That is cleary much more compelling 
It must be true it has numbers!
Look, I’m really sorry the efforts of several independent teams of scientists around the world collating decades worth of data fail to confirm your preconceived judgments, but this sort of blanket denialism really isn’t much of an argument.