Shutdown

[Alefroth]

I'm pretty sure ImLawBoy's post here finishes the argument. Can we move on now?

Not yet. We haven't seen how GreenGoo will respond. This whole thing hinges on whether he revises his statement or not.

[stessier]

I'm not saying I know what your speech is like, either legally or practically, but I do know that most western countries have a great amount of freedom as compared to the rest of the world, and no one has more than Americans.

Reporters Without Borders ranks the US #45, down two places from last year. Canada is #18. They rank freedom of the press, as opposed to the more nebulous "free speech," which I take to mean the rights of you and me to say whatever we want without official repercussions. Their methodology is explained on their site.

I'm struggling to imagine a country with freer press than the US. There is nothing "nebulous" about your free speech either. Canada's freedom of expression on the other hand, is the very definition of nebulous. The idea that Canada has freer speech than the US is appealing, but it's simply not true. Your libel and slander laws are much more stringent as well. There's a reason Americans sue international media companies in the UK, as opposed to the US (or Canada).

I'll take a look, but I'm skeptical, to say the least.

edit: While I don't see it defined, they use violence against journalists as a metric. Assuming this is not government sanctioned violence, and that the violence is against the law and the law is enforced in good faith, I'm struggling with this one. I get that if a journalist doesn't feel safe reporting, they don't feel free, and to a certain extent I agree. At the same time, private citizens running amok is somewhat counter to the idea of freedom of speech, which is freedom from government sanctions for speech. Violence against people who's ideas you don't like is not a restriction on speech any more than violence against people who like tofu is a restriction on peoples' right to eat tofu. If it's government sanctioned violence, I'm more open to the idea though. If the government refuses to prosecute those who attack tofu eaters, that's a significant difference.

edit: Yeah, they've got Romania, South Korea and the UK as having more freedom of speech than the US. I don't care what methodology they use, that's simply incorrect. Germany, rated 15th, will put you in jail for insulting foreign royalty. To claim that the US has less free speech than that is ridiculous.

edit: The site appears to be talking about freedom of information, which is not the subject being discussed, although it is related, granted. I'm talking about the freedom to say things, not the freedom to know things.

I'll take a closer look tomorrow.

I've already agreed that "freedom of the press" is not exactly the same thing as "free speech" so I'm open to other rankings, but I do think Reporters Without Borders is a pretty good judge. Violence against journalists in the US is not state-sponsored but it's undeniably encouraged by POTUS.

I wish they broke our their scoring for each category for each country. Their write up suggests the low score is almost solely due to Trump. I don't like what he says about journalism and find it problematic, but it hasn't yet reached the point where it is anything more than bluster.

Other things include barring journalists at the border and searching their devices at the border. Those are things that aren't specific to journalists and thus I think shouldn't be factored in.

Overall, I'm with GreenGoo. The protections for the press and for people in general are far better in the US than elsewhere. Many countries, like Sweden for instance, are pretty good but end up with things like hate speech that are illegal. While people think that's a thing in the US, it's actually not. I'm on a phone so linking is hard, but a quick Google search will show that courts have repeatedly stuck down those laws in the US for violating the first amendment.

Censorship by the state should be the ultimate measuring sick because of the resources the state can bring to bear and the liberties it can deprive people of in the process. The other stuff your link brings up falls under "would be nice if the world works this way" for me.

[$iljanus]

I'm pretty sure ImLawBoy's post here finishes the argument. Can we move on now?

Not yet. We haven't seen how GreenGoo will respond. This whole thing hinges on whether he revises his statement or not.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me if Blimpie's are still tasty or was it delicious only through the lens of nostalgia. But it's not all about my needs.

[LordMortis]

The writeup may suggest it is Trump but their historical ranking betray that suggestion

2018 45 / 180
2017 43 / 180
2016 41 / 180
2015 49 / 180
2014 46 / 180
2013 32 / 180


It still doesn't define their method.

[stessier]

The writeup may suggest it is Trump but their historical ranking betray that suggestion

2018 45 / 180
2017 43 / 180
2016 41 / 180
2015 49 / 180
2014 46 / 180
2013 32 / 180


It still doesn't define their method.

There is a methodology section, but without the individual category ratings, it's not very useful.

[stimpy]

Rather than run from it, embrace it. There's no better way to get better at debate than to debate really intelligent people who disagree with you and can point out your weaknesses.

And when I find some I'll be more than happy to engage.

[Jaymann]

I don't think there is any dispute that there are A-hole politicians on both sides of the aisle, it comes with the territory. But the current Republican core of Trump/McConnell/Ryan is an axis of evil we haven't seen since the days of Nixon. These fuckers are exploiting weaknesses in the system that the framers of the Constitution would never have anticipated as behavior of honorable men. Just the example of refusing to consider legitimate Supreme Court nominees until after an election is enough to make me puke.

In my experience with homeowners' associations (also prone to being handcuffed by petulant behavior), I have seen provisions where if they fail to produce a budget, it reverts back to the last approved budget until such time as the new budget can be approved. Why can't Congress come up with such a provision.

Trump's idea of unity is give in to my ridiculous demands or I will hurt millions of people. Anyone who has raised children who threaten to hold their breath until you give in to a ridiculous demand knows it is suicidal to give in. At least most toddlers aren't in a position to hurt millions of people.

[stimpy]

Blah fucking blah blah.....

You have quite a high opinion of yourself, based on what you consider to be facts.
To me, you seem like just another typical internet asshole with a much higher sense of worth than usual.
At what point do you get it that what you type only makes me giggle with delight, as it gives me yet another opportunity to try and ruin your day?
This has gone way past where it should have and in my opinion it's cause certain people want it to.
I'm more than happy to oblige.

[hepcat]

So we're at the "I'm drinking your tears with joy" stage of things? Or has this been going on for a while now and I'm just now noticing it?

[stimpy]

So we're at the "I'm drinking your tears with joy" stage of things? Or has this been going on for a while now and I'm just now noticing it?

More like I cant help but respond to certain posters nonsensical attempts to justify their comments.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
(Patiently waits to be told he doesn't know the meaning of nonsensical)

[hepcat]

Have you tried commenting on the original rebuttals to your claims that Dems don't want border security now?

[Exodor]

Trolls gonna troll.

[stimpy]

Trolls gonna troll.

Apparently so.

[stimpy]

Have you tried commenting on the original rebuttals to your claims that Dems don't want border security now?

I'm so far past that that it's not worth trying.

[Trent Steel]

Have you tried commenting on the original rebuttals to your claims that Dems don't want border security now?

I'm so far past that that it's not worth trying.

Womp Womp

[GreenGoo]

<shrug> You claimed that the US is #1 by a country mile at free speech. In light of yesterday's dustup over supporting one's opinions, I decided to check that and found evidence to the contrary. Whether the US should be #48 or #26 or #10 is not something I want to quibble over; I'm only interested in your claim that we're #1. Now I think you're expected to support or modify your opinion. You may also restate it more obstinately, attack my source, move the goalposts, erect a strawman, or insult my mother.

I've already agreed that "freedom of the press" is not exactly the same thing as "free speech" so I'm open to other rankings, but I do think Reporters Without Borders is a pretty good judge. Violence against journalists in the US is not state-sponsored but it's undeniably encouraged by POTUS.

tl;dr
The US has few, if any, competitors for the #1 spot on free speech. Identifying which countries can challenge it is too much work for me, so I'll concede that it may not be 100% accurate. I have yet to be convinced that it is inaccurate however.
----------------------------------------------------

I haven't read all the responses yet, so if I missed something let me know. Petulant man-children not included of course.

I haven't even had a chance to follow up on your source, but from what I read this morning I'm already willing to dismiss it in this context as I don't consider it definitive. You agree it's not a free speech rating. I agree it's not a free speech rating. What more is there to say about it? Is that enough of an "attack" on your sources? I also agree that it is closely related, so I understand why you pointed at it.

I think the POTUS "calling for" violence against journalists to be a bit disingenuous. It's not like he said the 2nd amendment people should do something about it. Political rhetoric is hardly a despot dismembering journalists in embassies. Not to mention journalists and politicians have always butted heads, this just happens to be a particularly deplorable example of it. That doesn't make AMERICA less of an example of free speech. To me that makes America a strong example of speech and democracy at work. The leader of the country can make stupid statements about some media and literally nothing happens. And if a crazy were to kill someone that's hardly because America has limited free speech. If other countries, say Norway, have laws preventing their leaders from talking about how the Press is the enemy of the people, I'd argue they have LESS free speech, not more. Laws limiting free speech are by definition limiting free speech, not increasing it. Your source feels the exact opposite. Free speech is not only "freedom of the press", although it is extremely important, of course.

As to Germany, well, things changed recently apparently. Up to a year or so ago the law was on the books, and as recently as a year ago, a comedian was arrested for the words he spoke about a foreign leader. Worse than an ancient little used law is that Merkel supported it's enforcement in this case against one of Germany's own citizens. So I'm glad that that is no longer the case. Good stuff. My example was a year out of date. Shrug. Keeping up with every country's changes to their laws is tough work. I'm a little behind. So while it may not apply today, it did apply recently. Good on Germany for making the change. You might be interested to know the law is based on a French concept called lèse-majesté, and many countries in Europe still have it on the books. Just not Germany any longer. According to the wiki, Denmark used that law within the last year to silence some Greenpeace protestors, despite letting them go without those specific charges. If that's not using laws to limit free speech, I don't know what is. My point is that even if Germany (#15 according to Reporters without borders) no longer has the law on the books, Denmark (#9) does and has used it, just like Germany did. I can forgive ancient, unused, absurd laws being on the books if they are no longer enforced. When they are unevenly used against specific targets, that's the exact opposite of free speech. Reporters without Borders thinks that's less important than whatever they've condemned the US to #45 for. That's absurd in the context of Free Speech. ABSURD.

Reporters without Borders appears to use criticism of journalists as another barometer in their rating of freedom of information. That's a difficult pill to swallow. The freedom to criticize is one of the basic tenets of Free Speech. It is almost literally the defining characteristic and reason for its importance. This is one of the "sins" the US is guilty of according to Reporters without Borders, knocking the US lower on their index. I mean, holy shit. Freedom of Speech doesn't rest on whether the speech is valid or invalid, and even libel/slander laws (some of the world's most difficult to achieve a conviction under) in the US have to show not only falsehood, but willful and damaging falsehood.

Have I "attacked' your source enough, Kraken?

How about this. I withdraw my claim that the US has the most freedom of speech of any country in the world, and replace it with few, if any, countries enjoy the level of free speech that the US does. My own country certainly doesn't. The UK certainly doesn't. Norway or Ireland may, although even Ireland only recently (like, last year. Hard to keep up on the entire world's laws, right?) removed their blasphemy laws, which are the same types of laws that keep images of Muhammad from being created. In that light, it's really, really hard to imagine Ireland's speech as being "more free" than the US's.

While I still feel strongly that the US has some of the strongest free speech in the world, I can't back up the #1 placement. Not because I've been convinced that others have more, but because the entire concept is tougher to quantify than I thought, and worse, harder for everyone to agree on a definition. I don't find Reporters without Borders to be very indicative in this respect, although I do support their work.

[hepcat]

I will admit that I think folks got a little too personal on both sides at times, and things became too heated. But I've seen folks around here disagree and then engage in honest discussions on why they disagree.

But immediately taking the stance that you don't have to defend your viewpoint because you don't think you need to/can't really defend it and just don't want to back down usually doesn't end well.

[GreenGoo]

For the record, I responded not to satisfy anyone's weird sense of fairness or because people are "waiting to see how GreenGoo responds". I responded because *this* is what R&P is about, what it does, and why we're here.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

[noxiousdog]

I understand why the pile-on is continuing, and I'm not defending anyone's actions here (including stimpy). But would it have reached that point if stimpy had not felt cornered by the forum? I'm not sure. None of us really are. But I can say I have lost my cool eventually after a pile-on and written some stupid stuff. So I could see that happening. Now we can point back since there has been a bit of a meltdown and say "See? They deserve the pile-on now. See what they are doing? So unreasonable, how can we not pile-on?" Then the person eventually gets turned into a caricature (through no help of themselves) and the forum moves on happy that everyone is again dang close to being on the same page.

And yet, if you don't police the nonsense, it becomes a place nobody wants to be.

I agree that we can pile on too much sometimes. Typically that self regulates and apologies occur. This is not one of the times that it's too much.

[GreenGoo]

I agree that we can pile on too much sometimes. Typically that self regulates and apologies occur. This is not one of the times that it's too much.

I feel guilty of triggering this particular victim complex. In my defense, I only wanted to identify and empathize with the experience of having to defend my positions against multiple people, not to claim it was unfair or unwarranted. Having an unpopular opinion means you need to do more to defend it, not less, then claim the world is being mean. That's what children do. At some point children get ignored when they have nothing to add and keep interrupting.

To be clear, R&P is hardly a paragon of mature and reasoned debate, but it does *try* to be, and most people tend to do their best even if they don't always succeed, including me. It's when people aren't even willing to try that I get embarrassed for them.

[Kraken]

How about this. I withdraw my claim that the US has the most freedom of speech of any country in the world, and replace it with few, if any, countries enjoy the level of free speech that the US does. My own country certainly doesn't. The UK certainly doesn't. Norway or Ireland may, although even Ireland only recently (like, last year. Hard to keep up on the entire world's laws, right?) removed their blasphemy laws, which are the same types of laws that keep images of Muhammad from being created. In that light, it's really, really hard to imagine Ireland's speech as being "more free" than the US's.

While I still feel strongly that the US has some of the strongest free speech in the world, I can't back up the #1 placement. Not because I've been convinced that others have more, but because the entire concept is tougher to quantify than I thought, and worse, harder for everyone to agree on a definition. I don't find Reporters without Borders to be very indicative in this respect, although I do support their work.

That's fine with me. I don't disagree with what you said; I just wondered if you could support it.

The US fell in the Reporters ranking last year partly because four journalists were gunned down in one incident. Under the Espionage Act, whistleblowers are subject to prosecution if they leak information to the press and there is still no “shield law” guaranteeing journalists’ right to protect sources’ identities. POTUS has a uniquely hostile attitude that I don't need to document. A Reporters representative partially explains the ranking in this WaPo video.

But again: Reporters Without Borders is specifically interested in press freedom, and we're talking more generally about individual expression, so I won't belabor that anymore.

[GreenGoo]

Cool. You (and I) put me in the uncomfortable position of finding fault with Reporters without Borders, which is not something that I wanted to do or liked doing, as I fully support the concept and it's not like anyone else is doing the work to protect and track freedom of the press worldwide, something I highly value.

Still, I was disappointed to see some of their metrics, as I simply couldn't agree with them, at least not to the significance they attached to them.

Lastly, I thought their website had zero journalists killed for the US, but maybe that was a previous year or I was looking at another country at the time (it was only in passing that I noticed it). I don't recall your example specifically but have no doubt you are correct. I'll look it up later to get informed.

In any case, I think we can agree that the US is a "world leader" in the concept of freedom of speech, whether that puts them at number one or not, few countries get to experience what the US does. And while this may seems like a cheat, I find tiny countries with tiny populations to be of less value in conversations such as this, as it's fairly easy to reach the outliers (both good and bad extremes) of any metric when dealing with so few people. New Zealand has less than 5 million people for God's sake. They could probably have a townhall and everyone agree that Sally should stop bad mouthing Jim in accounting. Larger countries can't agree that ketchup should never be on hamburgers, and that's as obvious a fundamental truth of the universe as it gets.

[stimpy]

I understand why the pile-on is continuing, and I'm not defending anyone's actions here (including stimpy). But would it have reached that point if stimpy had not felt cornered by the forum? I'm not sure. None of us really are. But I can say I have lost my cool eventually after a pile-on and written some stupid stuff. So I could see that happening. Now we can point back since there has been a bit of a meltdown and say "See? They deserve the pile-on now. See what they are doing? So unreasonable, how can we not pile-on?" Then the person eventually gets turned into a caricature (through no help of themselves) and the forum moves on happy that everyone is again dang close to being on the same page.

And yet, if you don't police the nonsense, it becomes a place nobody wants to be.

I agree that we can pile on too much sometimes. Typically that self regulates and apologies occur. This is not one of the times that it's too much.

Nope....it's juuuust the right amount of pile on.

[Kraken]

Lastly, I thought their website had zero journalists killed for the US, but maybe that was a previous year or I was looking at another country at the time (it was only in passing that I noticed it). I don't recall your example specifically but have no doubt you are correct. I'll look it up later to get informed.

Capital Gazette shooting. The shooting was not politically motivated, but the shooter was an alt-right troll. For their rankings, Reporters counts deaths without regard to their motivations.

[Isgrimnur]

Yup. They counted the Swedish reporter that was murdered on the submarine as a mark against {Sweden || Denmark}.

[GreenGoo]

For their rankings, Reporters counts deaths without regard to their motivations.

Well that's a little ridiculous and self serving.

Next they'll be telling me the US has less banking freedom because a hedge fund manager was killed by his ex-employee/lover.

[Kraken]

For their rankings, Reporters counts deaths without regard to their motivations.

Well that's a little ridiculous and self serving.

Next they'll be telling me the US has less banking freedom because a hedge fund manager was killed by his ex-employee/lover.

Hey, the US total included two reporters who were killed by falling trees. I gather that it's intended to indicate how hazardous the job is...full stop. But I agree that a little filtering would make it more meaningful. Being dismembered at a Trump rally is not the same as dying because your editor sent you out in a hurricane.

[NickAragua]

Where does the Washington post guy fall? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?

[GreenGoo]

Hey, the US total included two reporters who were killed by falling trees. I gather that it's intended to indicate how hazardous the job is...full stop. But I agree that a little filtering would make it more meaningful. Being dismembered at a Trump rally is not the same as dying because your editor sent you out in a hurricane.

I don't mind as long as I'm aware of how the metric is applied and measured. At the same time, if you die due to reasons unrelated to the job (edit: or maybe you meant died while actively doing their jobs? My bad), is that really a good indicator of how hazardous the job is, full stop or not?

Anyway, it is what it is, and now I know.

edit: Or if an "ACTION NEWS REPORTER" decides to stand outside in a hurricane, is that really a freedom of the press issue? Again, as long as we know what they are measuring and how, we can do our own cynical discounting of their stats.

[Jaymann]

In the interest of fair play I got sandwich from Jersey Mike's today. It was pretty good, but I was disappointed that no one tried to coerce me into buying a #17.

[noxiousdog]

I understand why the pile-on is continuing, and I'm not defending anyone's actions here (including stimpy). But would it have reached that point if stimpy had not felt cornered by the forum? I'm not sure. None of us really are. But I can say I have lost my cool eventually after a pile-on and written some stupid stuff. So I could see that happening. Now we can point back since there has been a bit of a meltdown and say "See? They deserve the pile-on now. See what they are doing? So unreasonable, how can we not pile-on?" Then the person eventually gets turned into a caricature (through no help of themselves) and the forum moves on happy that everyone is again dang close to being on the same page.

And yet, if you don't police the nonsense, it becomes a place nobody wants to be.

I agree that we can pile on too much sometimes. Typically that self regulates and apologies occur. This is not one of the times that it's too much.

Nope....it's juuuust the right amount of pile on.

Frankly, it's probably not enough. The fact that you feel the need to reply to each of my posts even though I stopped engaging directly shows I'm right.

I have no interest in engaging you or the other nonsense spewers in this sub-forum, but I will speak out in defense of the forum.

[El Guapo]

I will say that there's something delightfully meta about the shutdown thread descending into bitter recriminations that are likely to achieve little of note.

[Isgrimnur]

I will say that there's something delightfully meta about the shutdown thread descending into bitter recriminations that are likely to achieve little of note.

[Zaxxon]

I will say that the #17 ain't bad. It's no 13, though.

[GreenGoo]

I will say that there's something delightfully meta about the shutdown thread descending into bitter recriminations that are likely to achieve little of note.

Took me a good 3-5 seconds to connect all the dots in his post. That's only noteworthy because at first I was like "how is that delightfully meta?".

[stimpy]

Frankly, it's probably not enough. The fact that you feel the need to reply to each of my posts even though I stopped engaging directly shows I'm right.
I have no interest in engaging you or the other nonsense spewers in this sub-forum, but I will speak out in defense of the forum.

It's because I secretly have a crush on you. Well.....not so secret now, am I right???

[GreenGoo]

Note: I'm referring to the tweeter in this post not the poster, although I don't have anything kind to say about people willing to promulgate it either.

That's ridiculous. She's clearly air high fiving someone off camera because they are too far apart to actually high five.

That's actually a thing.

Well it's a thing amongst cool people who are confident and celebrating. Cool people, confidence and celebrating are likely all foreign concepts to the original tweeter.

I'm all for mocking stupid behaviour. I'm less for taking things out of context to win some sort of juvenile one upsmanship the twitterverse likes to engage in. Why not photoshop a lizard's head on top of her and be done with it.

edit: I'd also like to point out that the alt-right sphere are jerking themselves off over this. This is the stinging criticism they have for her. Also, she's clapping/not clapping at things they approve/don't approve of. They are absolutely shitting their pants over her existence, not anything substantive she's done, and it couldn't be more beautiful. I think we can expect many decades of negative campaigning until everyone "just knows" she's crooked, and LM doesn't like her, but has no idea why.

I don't really have any opinion of her, other than she's young, and seems to be nearly unflappable in the face of political attacks. She's young and says stupid things sometimes, which is hardly a crime as much older, wiser politicians do the same. Saying stupid things is a hallmark of politicians in general. At worst I think you could say she's inexperienced and has a lot to learn. She's too far left for me but your country could use a little perspective on that, so I like her anyway.

Alt-right men are clamouring to be the first to find fault with her, and that's a good sign.

[Zaxxon]

It's fun whenever I see tweeters suggesting she run in 2020 (presumably because Trump would beat her), as the ignorance-broadcasting is so divine.

[LawBeefaroni]

Note: I'm referring to the tweeter in this post not the poster, although I don't have anything kind to say about people willing to promulgate it either.

That's ridiculous. She's clearly air high fiving someone off camera because they are too far apart to actually high five.

That's actually a thing.

Well it's a thing amongst cool people who are confident and celebrating. Cool people, confidence and celebrating are likely all foreign concepts to the original tweeter.

I'm all for mocking stupid behaviour. I'm less for taking things out of context to win some sort of juvenile one upsmanship the twitterverse likes to engage in. Why not photoshop a lizard's head on top of her and be done with it.

edit: I'd also like to point out that the alt-right sphere are jerking themselves off over this. This is the stinging criticism they have for her. Also, she's clapping/not clapping at things they approve/don't approve of. They are absolutely shitting their pants over her existence, not anything substantive she's done, and it couldn't be more beautiful. I think we can expect many decades of negative campaigning until everyone "just knows" she's crooked, and LM doesn't like her, but has no idea why.

I don't really have any opinion of her, other than she's young, and seems to be nearly unflappable in the face of political attacks. She's young and says stupid things sometimes, which is hardly a crime as much older, wiser politicians do the same. Saying stupid things is a hallmark of politicians in general. At worst I think you could say she's inexperienced and has a lot to learn. She's too far left for me but your country could use a little perspective on that, so I like her anyway.

Alt-right men are clamouring to be the first to find fault with her, and that's a good sign.

It's like grade school when boys pick on the girls they secretly have a crush on because they're too emotionally underdeveloped to properly express those feelings. These alt-righters probably also suffer a bit of guilt after they finish fapping in the outhouse so they publicly attack her while scouring the internet for more photos and videos of her.

[Unagi]

Note: I'm referring to the tweeter in this post not the poster, although I don't have anything kind to say about people willing to promulgate it either.

That's ridiculous. She's clearly air high fiving someone off camera because they are too far apart to actually high five.

That's actually a thing.

Well it's a thing amongst cool people who are confident and celebrating. Cool people, confidence and celebrating are likely all foreign concepts to the original tweeter.

I'm all for mocking stupid behaviour. I'm less for taking things out of context to win some sort of juvenile one upsmanship the twitterverse likes to engage in. Why not photoshop a lizard's head on top of her and be done with it.

Thank you, I just wrote all this, and then went to see if that's what you wrote.


It's hilariously funny to make fun of her for it. And to promulgate it.