> Why do individual European countries seem so obsessed with blocking Pirate sites?
Ask the Disney Cooperation.
A facetious, but true, remark that describes the influence the large American media companies can have in combating piracy over here. Sir should recall the pressure the USA put on Sweden to close down the Pirate Bay; a Swedish site running in Sweden.
> the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting.
We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).
If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.
> Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police).
Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president.
For what it's worth, I have lived in, and currently spend a lot of time in, both places. You're both very obviously wrong.
There is a serious problem in the US. There is also a serious (though different) problem in the UK. The problem in the US is the chilling effect of the vindictiveness and lawlessness of the current regime. I will not elaborate on this because it's too complicated to communicate effectively in a forum post.
The problem in the UK is a set of vaguely and arbitrarily specified-and-enforced laws that enable the criminalization of 'grossly offensive" speech. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication -- all enforcement is arbitrary and thus can be abused. Whether is it actually abused in any widespread fashion is irrelevant.
- Communications Act 2003 (Section 127): Makes it an offense to send messages via public electronic networks (internet, phone, social media) that are "grossly offensive," indecent, obscene, or menacing, or to cause annoyance/anxiety.
- Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): Applies to sending letters or electronic communications with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, containing indecent or grossly offensive content.
I'm still not quite sure how UK law impacts the US. I was hoping for explicit examples of someone actually being removed from power because they were critical of the president. I think that would be pretty big news and the closest I have heard was one of the ex-military standing congresspeople being threatened with reduced military benefits, or legal action, but not actually anyone being removed from a position.
Another (higher profile) example are the baseless threats of criminal indictments against Jerome Powell -- it is impossible to argue that these threats have been made for any reason other than that he, as a nonpartisan official, defied the president's demands to execute his duties as fed chair in such a way (that is, poorly) so as to put a temporary thumb on the scale for the current admin.
The more important question, I think, is how many folk in explicitly nonpartisan functions are choosing not to break step with the current admin for fear of some sort of (likely professional) reprisal. I'm not alleging that they're disappearing dissenters or anything that inflammatory, but it would be intellectually dishonest to contend that there isn't a long, well-documented trail of malfeasance here.
Aaaah, I was wondering where you were pulling the claims about free speech in the UK from, but I understand now: it's the speech that aligns with your values is free! Was confused there for a bit.
Well, according to that line of thought, people in the US only face the consequences of going against national security and are free to sue the government for wrongful termination/slander/whatever.
Now we can agree that there's free speech everywhere.
> but I understand now: it's the speech that aligns with your values is free!
What a wilfully ridiculous interpretation of my text!
I'll type this slowly for you: In civilised democracies, inciting violence against ANYBODY is illegal and crosses the line from free speech. Any decision to convict for incitement lies with a jury of 12 random citizens.
Calm your horses there, mate. The interpretation is fully justified.
Assuming you live in the UK, you're basically saying that losing your job because you criticised the government is a very grave matter indeed, but what happened to Palestine Action is all nice and dandy because jurors.
For those who don't know: Palestine Action is a collective of people protesting the genocide in Gaza, they would occupy/blockade factories of Israeli weapons manufacturers and "vandalise" said weapons. They were recently declared a terrorist group and proscribed, with thousands being arrested for showing support (including by wearing t-shirts) since.
You're right, losing your job because you said something against the government and going to prison because you wore a t-shirt protesting an ongoing genocide are not the same thing.
I believe similar has happened, whereby a seller of the Big Issue (a magazine sold by the homeless to raise money) had a postcode issued to a bench where they could pick up deliveries of the magazine.
Whilst you make a good point, the true purpose of this site it to draw attention to the new outrageous tax bills faced by pubs; many of which are going under and are a real loss to the communities they serve.
> freedom of speech restrictions like Canada, Australia, and The UK
Unlike in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority?
(If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country.)
Arthur C Clarke once suggested that some supernova could be industrial accidents. A curiously romantic idea, and one I rather like!
reply