On Trump

[GO-NAD!]

To his face? Or a protest in the middle of town?

I could get into my king's face as easily as you could get into your president's. Regardless, I could certainly protest in a public space if I was so inclined. I live in a democracy after all...

 

[Dude#1279435]

Love the b&w analogy as if there are not varying degrees of kings. Trump I'd consider as Putin Lite.

 

[Mikado463]

You age any better?

much..........

 

[dlaloum]

It is sometimes worth reminding people, that there is no universal right to "Free Speech" - and the inclusion in the US constitution (and its amendments) is quite exceptional.

For the rest of the world, the right to hold opinions and express oneself is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and further elaborated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

However although many countries pay lip service to these, and are signatories, far fewer have actually ratified these into local national law... making them in many cases more symbolic than actual!

 

[dlaloum]

I could get into my king's face as easily as you could get into your president's. Regardless, I could certainly protest in a public space if I was so inclined. I live in a democracy after all...

There are plenty of democracies with no right to free speech, along with laws illegalising "seditious speech" being actually on the books in every country I am aware of!

There is no direct link between "democracy" and "freedom of speech"...

 

[lovinthehd]

There are plenty of democracies with no right to free speech, along with laws illegalising "seditious speech" being actually on the books in every country I am aware of!

There is no direct link between "democracy" and "freedom of speech"...

Name a few of those "democracies" with no right to free speech? OTOH there is nowhere a true democracy. If speech is limited, is it just the populace or is the dictator included?

 

[GO-NAD!]

There are plenty of democracies with no right to free speech, along with laws illegalising "seditious speech" being actually on the books in every country I am aware of!

There is no direct link between "democracy" and "freedom of speech"...

What's with the pedantry? Democracy is not a binary state, it exists on a sliding scale. The healthier the democracy is in any given society, the greater the respect will be for human rights - including freedom of speech. Any "democracy" that significantly curtails freedom of speech is a very much compromised/illiberal democracy.

I should mention, we actually don't have "freedom of speech" in Canada, we have "freedom of expression", which is actually broader than - and includes - freedom of speech.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Welp the rallies were really "Hate America." All the violence, marxism, and antifa. "No Kings" has no real meaning. The End. Thanks for clearing that up, Speaker Johnson.

 

[dlaloum]

Name a few of those "democracies" with no right to free speech? OTOH there is nowhere a true democracy. If speech is limited, is it just the populace or is the dictator included?

Australia - sedition is illegal, no right to free speech is enshrined in law, it ranks higher on the democratic index than the USA does (ie: more of a democracy) - the courts have ruled that Freedom of speech is implied... but it wouldn't take much of a douchebag Trumpian style leader, to overrule that given that no explicit right exists.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Australia - sedition is illegal, no right to free speech is enshrined in law, it ranks higher on the democratic index than the USA does (ie: more of a democracy) - the courts have ruled that Freedom of speech is implied... but it wouldn't take much of a douchebag Trumpian style leader, to overrule that given that no explicit right exists.

That's what I don't understand. How does Australia rank higher yet free speech is not clearly specified? Instead using the vague implied or freedom of expression.

Think I see it now. Democracy is higher in Australia now vs Trump being the US president. Though with such vague language any crackpot could come in to Australia and overturn democracy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Australia - sedition is illegal, no right to free speech is enshrined in law, it ranks higher on the democratic index than the USA does (ie: more of a democracy) - the courts have ruled that Freedom of speech is implied... but it wouldn't take much of a douchebag Trumpian style leader, to overrule that given that no explicit right exists.

I'm guessing that sedition is probably illegal in most countries, regardless of any legislated right to free speech. Such legislation is unlikely to grant an absolute right to free speech and would likely be restricted by libel/slander laws, as well as those prohibiting sedition.

Just as democracy is not a binary, yes or no, condition, the same applies to freedom of speech.

 

[GO-NAD!]

That's what I don't understand. How does Australia rank higher yet free speech is not clearly specified? Instead using the vague implied or freedom of expression.

Think I see it now. Democracy is higher in Australia now vs Trump being the US president. Though with such vague language any crackpot could come in to Australia and overturn democracy.

It's because there are many other factors, in addition to free speech, to consider when judging the degree of freedom in any particular country.