>Most of the worst excesses of US politics seem to go back to deep mistrust of government and people taking about their "rights".
And what would those be?
And what would those be?
Anyways it is very rare to die by illegitimate gunfire (not from the state). You are more likely to die in falls, slips, choking, drowning, cars, motorcycles... The list is never ending.
In the West we are conditioned to be terrified of guns and terrorists, but it is incredibly rare to die of either, especially if you stay out the hood.
Why not campaign against something that kills more people but which doesn't serve an arguably necessary purpose? Why try to jump for one of the highest and most questionable fruits on the tree?
Tyrants always will seek to consolidate power. If your intention is altruism, try to save lives by an easier means.
It's a right that Americans are very proud of, but the edge cases when contrasted to what other countries have in practice seem to all be net negatives.
Second, I do think americans are majorly better off than western europeans for free speech. Consider efforts to ban wearing clothing: that is not how you build a healthy, supportive, productive society, though it is perhaps how you let a culture stagnate. Or, perhaps consider this very article: it is not illegal to read something. (Possesion and distribution are another thing entirely.)
Finally, for better or worse, american free speech has plenty of bounds. Critically, those bounds are typically nowhere near politics or morals, except perhaps reflected in hate speech.
> I have literally never heard a critique
> about the negatives of american free
> speech
> I do think americans are etc
Off the top of my head: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36055488
EDIT: Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9#Europe
Nonetheless, you are extraordinarily correct about citizens united, though I would more finger the blame there on corporate personhood, not free speech. The protections still make sense for individual; corporations do not make sense of individuals.
But there are all sorts of weird exceptions and the practicality of free speech has different contours. Extremely prudish but pro-violence film ratings, for example. "Ag-gag" laws (which were eventually struck down).
The free speech worst case scenario is not American but Rwandan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
I agree that was horrendous; however why is it the worst case? The US military also funds and sponsors media, and lies to create war. Why were the Rwandan government's provocations worse than the US's? More people have died in The War on Terror. Both wars were unjust, for power and profit, and targeted specific ethnic groups.
Rwanda's genocide itself does have a particularly evil nature. I'm just trying to show that it is difficult to say which is more evil.
Free speech isn't perfect; it is just better than the alternative.
>the worst side of "freedom to lie"
There are already laws against false accusations and lying. So in theory, if someone slanders a rape-survivor group by saying they have no right to be upset, etc., because they were not raped, the accuser can be held liable for those false accusations, which is a good thing. I support free speech strongly, but I don't think people have the right to deliberately lie about individuals, groups or businesses, without consequences.