[flagged]
This is a weird metric of freedom. It seems more like a reflexive, zeitgeist based response than any actual freedom metric.
In my experience the country with the most freedom is Canada. I have never seen anything like it. It's just so easy to do business there. Even if it wasn't that the laws enable it (they do) but even the way people operate. Being able to have a discussion with a customer without 12 rounds of a solicitor trying to insert dumb loopholes into a contract, costing the potential customer more in billable hours to their solicitor than the cost of the contract.
The USA is just junk. States that want to be Feds, Feds that want to be States, and when you cut through all the red tape you still have to deal with Litigious, ignorant Americans. Oh and if you want to import or export something just forget it.
"Oh but we have guns" is basically the exception that proves the rule, in a country where people get detained for such crimes as "Being beloved childrens author Mem Fox" or "Said naughty things on reddit" or "Working while waiting for Immigration to sort their status out".
But guns right. Guns. Woohoo freedom yeehaw guns.
You suggesting that in the name of freedom - everyone must have air conditioning and cool their homes to 60F?
I’m on my phone, so it’s a little bit difficult for me to find clear examples, but I think this post talks about some of those freedom of speech violations.
I might be completely wrong, but it seems like news articles are not repeating the messages that caused the arrest. They just seem to be reporting that the arrest happened and high-level description of the content.
People can say whatever they want without hurting anyone. In the case of incitement of violence, the issue is the person(s) who actually committed the violence, not a tweet online.
I'd compare "inciting violence" to a woman dressing in provocative clothing in a bad area of town late at night. Very few people would blame the woman and say she's legally responsible if she's attacked, I hold the same line on speech.
Say what you want, dress how you want, it doesn't matter. If another person actually causes harm they can't shirk the blame off on you, they made the choice to commit violence.
Notably you didn't engage with my analogy at all. Would you tell a victim of sexual assault that they were partly to blame based on their clothing choices or decision to be in a particular part of town a particular time of day? If not, how would you legally distinguish the two scenarios?
Incorrect. Nowhere did I say or imply that.
> your looking to who they may have listened to and what they may have heard such that some blame belongs there.
That is correct.
You seem to think there's a fixed amount of total blame X and if we assign even the tiniest amount of blame to one person, then the main perpetrator must get less blame than they otherwise would. Nothing I said implies that.
> Notably you didn't engage with my analogy at all.
That's because it's not an analogy, it's a strawman.
> Would how would you legally distinguish the two scenarios?
One of them is wearing certain clothes, the other is intentionally inciting hatred and violence. If you can't make that distinction, I don't know what to tell you.
Procedurally they require different actions to create or change. More fundamentally though, the constitution protects rights while laws limit them.
Here is one of the latest cases, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz1qy30v5o Here is another one: "West Midlands Police arrested a 15-year-old boy named Fraser on August 3, 2026, after he published Facebook posts mocking Conservative Wolverhampton City Council member Simon Bennett." ...after posting an image of a politician with the bunny ears.
Who defines what is murder and what is self-defence? You already know the answer to this. The legislature.
Your first link is about police misconduct, not what the laws are or should be. Your second quote does not contain any of the relevant posts and just spews random unverifiable claims.
In other words, whoever is at power at the moment. There is no constitutional protection.
"police misconduct"... The OP said "It is a common misconception... that people are arrested and jailed for making jokes or otherwise casually chatting on social media". I gave you an example to the contrary. I do follow the UK news, and it's not hard to come up with multiple similar examples, there is no need to gaslight me. UK democracy has been somewhat waning lately.
As for the bunny ears story, not spews but says -- and type the headline into google, you'll get multiple sources. It is verifiable, you are just afraid to check lest it is actually true. Try harder.
(\_/)
( •.• )
c(")_(")One suggestion - don't travel much around the world and certainly avoid backpacking and interacting with locals and understanding things like history or culture, you may eventually lose those... beautiful opinions of yours
I'm not MAGA either.
You sound like a typical liberal that pretends they're open minded but really isn't.