in the long-term this could move the country toward the draconian censorship regimes, restrictions on political opposition, and unresponsiveness to public opinion that we see today in England, France, and Germany
I don’t know much about freedom of speach in US, but all the free speech indexes that I’ve found with a quick search show that European countries are ahead of US. Am I missing something?
Very hard to take an index about “freedom of expression” seriously when the United States, a country with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is ranked lower than the United Kingdom, which prosecutes hundreds of people for political speech every year.
The index by Reporters Without Boarders is primarily about whether a newspaper or reporter can say something without consequences or interference. Things like a competitive media environment seem to be part of the index (The USAs scorecard says “media ownership is highly concentrated, and many of the companies buying American media outlets appear to prioritize profits over public interest journalism”). Its an important thing, but its not the same thing you are talking about.
The second one, from “our world in data”, ultimately comes from this (https://www.v-dem.net/documents/56/methodology.pdf). Their measure includes things like corruption, whether political power or influence is concentrated into a smaller group and effective checks and balances on the use of executive power. It sounds like they should have called it a “democratic health index” or something like that instead of a “freedom-of-expression index”.
The last one is just a survey of what people think should be allowed.
It might be the case that the US has higher protections for freedom of expression, in terms of spoken or written text. I would certainly agree that some of the restrictions in central Europe are rather onerous. However, as someone who has lived in central Europe, it seems that central Europe allows for considerably higher freedom of political expression for the average person where it counts: at the polls. We have various voting systems that favor a plurality of parties instead of first-past-the-post systems like in the UK or the US.
Therefore I would call the statement from the OP by Richard Ngo “unresponsiveness to public opinion that we see today in England, France, and Germany.” factually incorrect.
On the other hand, people from the United States are often the first to tell you that “freedom of speech” is not a general aspiration for making the world a better place, but merely a specific amendment to their constitution, which importantly only applies to censorship done directly by the government… therefore it does not apply to censorship by companies or mobs or universities or whatever.
(As an extreme example, from this perspective, a country without an official government would count as 100% free speech, even if criticizing the local warlord gets you predictably tortured to death; as long as the local warlord is not considered a “government” because of some technicality.)
The indexes above seem to be concerned only with state restrictions on speech. But even if they weren’t, I would be surprised if the private situation was any better in the UK than it is here.
Yes: those indices are bullshit, and don’t measure what they purport to. I expect they’re faithfully reporting the results of whatever metric they constructed without falsifying any data, but that metric is entirely disconnected from what the median American would consider “freedom of speech.”
What you’re doing is essentially pointing at a map like this, and taking it seriously.
That’s a good map; it changed my mind on how seriously to take these sorts of rankings. Do you know the original source? On reverse image search I just found a bunch of reddit posts with hosted copies of the image.
These indices are probably not meaningful. It’s easy to find news stories of ordinary people in England and Germany being arrested for their opinions or even for mocking elected officials.
In England, content that’s merely “grossly offensive” or “menacing” is illegal under their Communications Act 2003, and similar laws date back earlier.
In contrast, in America since Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech is criminal only when it is (a) intended, and (b) likely to produce imminent lawless action, or when it is a true threat, obscenity, or narrow category such as child‑pornography.
I don’t know much about freedom of speach in US, but all the free speech indexes that I’ve found with a quick search show that European countries are ahead of US. Am I missing something?
https://rsf.org/en/index
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/freedom-of-expression-index
https://futurefreespeech.org/who-supports-free-speech-findings-from-a-global-survey/
Very hard to take an index about “freedom of expression” seriously when the United States, a country with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is ranked lower than the United Kingdom, which prosecutes hundreds of people for political speech every year.
I agree with your broader point, but it’s actually more than 10,000 people per year.
Wow, I didn’t realize.
The index by Reporters Without Boarders is primarily about whether a newspaper or reporter can say something without consequences or interference. Things like a competitive media environment seem to be part of the index (The USAs scorecard says “media ownership is highly concentrated, and many of the companies buying American media outlets appear to prioritize profits over public interest journalism”). Its an important thing, but its not the same thing you are talking about.
The second one, from “our world in data”, ultimately comes from this (https://www.v-dem.net/documents/56/methodology.pdf). Their measure includes things like corruption, whether political power or influence is concentrated into a smaller group and effective checks and balances on the use of executive power. It sounds like they should have called it a “democratic health index” or something like that instead of a “freedom-of-expression index”.
The last one is just a survey of what people think should be allowed.
It might be the case that the US has higher protections for freedom of expression, in terms of spoken or written text. I would certainly agree that some of the restrictions in central Europe are rather onerous. However, as someone who has lived in central Europe, it seems that central Europe allows for considerably higher freedom of political expression for the average person where it counts: at the polls. We have various voting systems that favor a plurality of parties instead of first-past-the-post systems like in the UK or the US.
Therefore I would call the statement from the OP by Richard Ngo “unresponsiveness to public opinion that we see today in England, France, and Germany.” factually incorrect.
This looks like a cached thought from before Romania annulled the presidential election because the wrong guy won.
On the other hand, people from the United States are often the first to tell you that “freedom of speech” is not a general aspiration for making the world a better place, but merely a specific amendment to their constitution, which importantly only applies to censorship done directly by the government… therefore it does not apply to censorship by companies or mobs or universities or whatever.
(As an extreme example, from this perspective, a country without an official government would count as 100% free speech, even if criticizing the local warlord gets you predictably tortured to death; as long as the local warlord is not considered a “government” because of some technicality.)
The indexes above seem to be concerned only with state restrictions on speech. But even if they weren’t, I would be surprised if the private situation was any better in the UK than it is here.
Yes: those indices are bullshit, and don’t measure what they purport to. I expect they’re faithfully reporting the results of whatever metric they constructed without falsifying any data, but that metric is entirely disconnected from what the median American would consider “freedom of speech.”
What you’re doing is essentially pointing at a map like this, and taking it seriously.
That’s a good map; it changed my mind on how seriously to take these sorts of rankings. Do you know the original source? On reverse image search I just found a bunch of reddit posts with hosted copies of the image.
No, sorry. I think it’s a now-deleted tumblr post, but I first saw it it on one of those reddit posts.
These indices are probably not meaningful. It’s easy to find news stories of ordinary people in England and Germany being arrested for their opinions or even for mocking elected officials.
German criminal law actually adds special penalties for “defaming” politicians (Defamation of persons in the political arena, Section 188, German Criminal Code) as part of a dozen free-speech limitations that would violate the First Amendment here. And truth isn’t an ironclad defense the way it is here.
In England, content that’s merely “grossly offensive” or “menacing” is illegal under their Communications Act 2003, and similar laws date back earlier.
There are multiple cases even in the last few months alone of these laws being used vigorously in both countries (e.g. this case in England in which someone was jailed for insulting a politician)
In contrast, in America since Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech is criminal only when it is (a) intended, and (b) likely to produce imminent lawless action, or when it is a true threat, obscenity, or narrow category such as child‑pornography.