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.

 

[dlaloum]

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.

If you look up the democracy / freedom indexes, the Australian system is more democratic than most (and more so than the USA)

We have compulsory universal voting - at Federal, state and local government levels - as a result the election participation rate is over 90% of the adult population, and those who choose NOT to participate do so knowing that they will need to pay a fine for the priviledge... (not a big one, but still).

Mostly those who wish to make that kind of statement, participate, come to the polling station, and put in a blank vote.

Also the electoral commission is neutral (non partisan) and well funded, resulting in plenty of polling stations everywhere, and queues during elections that typically take no more than 30min or so (except at peak times) - also options for early voting and voting by mail, further facilitate things.... everything is done to ensure that voting is not onerous, and everyone can participate. (so hugely reduced likelihood of gerrymandering, or other such partisan distortions)

This doesn't stop the parties in power trying to tilt the environment to boost their chances - messing with election funding laws, etc... but still overall, a more democratic system than the USA.

suggest reading this:
The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

The USA ranked as a "Flawed Democracy" in the 2024 rankings...

The following paragraph gives a quick overview of the US fall from "Full Democracy" to "Flawed Democracy"

In 2016, the United States was downgraded from a full democracy to a flawed democracy; its score, which had been declining for some years, crossed the threshold from 8.05 in 2015 to 7.98 in 2016. The report stated that this was caused by myriad factors dating back to at least the late 1960s which have eroded Americans' trust in governmental institutions.

I would suggest that Trump is a symptom of the flaws in US democracy... although he then exacerbates (exploits!) those flaws. - Without the flaws, Trump would not have risen to power.

 

[dlaloum]

The 2025 democracy Index results, will be published in March 2026... (which is when the Economist publishes the collated results of the previous year).

At this point I think the question is how far the USA will fall, rather than whether it will fall (in the rankings).
Will it actually move from "Flawed Democracy" to "Hybrid Regime"? - I expect that partly depends on Trump/MAGA success, and court/state governments failures.....
If the other branches of government manage to resist the executive attempts to gain more power... then the drop may be somewhat limited - if not, then a drop to "Hybrid Regime" is inevitable...(although the cadence of that drop is unknown) as that is in fact the MAGA/Trump objective.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Some interesting reading not only on the charge but how the Trump admin claims this isn't revenge LOL. 180 years max?

Trump's DOJ indicts John Bolton for leaking classified information

The former Trump administration official is facing a maximum of 180 years in prison.

reason.com

 

[TankTop5]

Some interesting reading not only on the charge but how the Trump admin claims this isn't revenge LOL. 180 years max?

Trump's DOJ indicts John Bolton for leaking classified information

The former Trump administration official is facing a maximum of 180 years in prison.

reason.com

Pretty biased sources in that article. Mark Zaid, the attorney for the anonymous whistleblower in Trump‘s first impeachment. The impeachment was based off of an anonymous source with secondhand information of a phone call. That right there is pretty bonkers.