This piece by the Washington Post Editorial Board published in September 2022 actually mentioned one of the two Wikipedians but described him merely as "a writer, translator and computer programmer" – so the Wikipedia connection wasn't clear.
> And then the US government protected Saudi Arabia from any lawsuits in the US
I've just randomly clicked this link and... How in the world did you even manage to phrase it like that?
Why do people lie in their summaries that often these days? Do you seriously expect that people are actually that ignorant that they won't call you out?
Just 5 seconds into the article and knowing what a "diplomatic immunity" is all you need to see that the summary has nothing to do with an actual subject of the article.
Is anyone else disturbed by how easily people twist and erase information in their sum-ups? What's up with that?
Ok, but please don't post generic religious or nationalistic flamewar comments to HN. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that's what this is—especially when it gets upvoted to the top of the page, as these things often do.
We're trying to avoid generic ideological tangents in general because they're the most predictable sort of internet discussion. The same points simply repeat in endless circulation. That may be fine for certain kinds of conversation but it's not fine for a forum dedicated to intellectual curiosity, which is served by diving in into what is specific and different about a situation.
Edit: actually, given how badly you broke the site guidelines with religious flamewar elsewhere in the thread, I've banned the account. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34404910, and please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
> His English is very good, but the concept of inalienable rights, freedom of speech, and freedom to yell at our politicians .. he was intellectually incapable of understanding this, his society had brainwashed him so thoroughly.
I don’t think that’s a charitable or logical framing of his point of view. Unless you’re religious—which the American framers were—“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept. In the state of nature, you are free to say whatever you want, and the people around you are free to beat you to death for it. It’s only when you have a civilized society that the concept of rights makes sense. Roughly speaking “rights” are simply rules society agrees upon for how individuals relate to each other (e.g. private property) or how society as a whole relates to the individual (e.g. free speech). There’s nothing inherent about any arbitrarily selected set of “rights.”
> It’s hilarious watching all the posters tell OP he’s mistaken about a life experience he had.
This is a pretty bullshit reading of the comment you replied to, which was about the nature of "rights" as a social agreement rather than something natural.
To add to your comment, nobody says OP’s experience is incorrect. Instead, the comment thinking4real takes reflexive offence to seeks to explain it, not demean it.
Said comment seized on one phrase, jumped to a conclusion about what the top-level's friend's actual misunderstanding was, and chastized them for not agreeing with their guess. We don't know if the top-level commenter's judgment is correct, but the rest of us certainly don't have enough evidence to be so confident they're wrong.
How is calling someone “brainwashed” a life experience?
People are allowed to have different values and opinions. Hubris is believing western morality is self evidently superior to everything else that exists.
> Unless you’re religious...“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept.
That's an odd claim to make so casually. This is something people can and have argued about for thousands of years, in both directions. One direction is: How can we have values in a world without god(s)? (See: Epicureanism, Kantian ethics, or any other system of secular morality). But the other, equally fair direction is: How can we have values in a world with god(s)? (See: The Euthyphro dilemma and broader problem of evil, the Epicurean paradox, or more recent historical and anthropological analyses of how religions and their institutions are formed and operate.)
I suppose you can play bad-faith semantic games with "inalienable", "right", or "inherent" as words here, but the long and short of it is that this isn't a settled issue. There are good arguments not only that religion is not needed as a foundation for rights, but that religion has not (historically) and cannot (philosophically) provide this foundation.
I didn’t say “God” I said “religion.” “Secular” morality invariably reduces to a system of moral assertions that must be believed but cannot be empirically observed or proven true. To me, that’s just another way of saying “religion.”
For example, what’s Kantian ethics?
> It states that an action can only be moral if (i) it is motivated by a sense of duty and (ii) its maxim may be rationally willed a universal, objective law.
If I autopsy a dead body, am I going to find any evidence of those things in there? Can you empirically prove the categorical imperative?
Moreover, “secular morality” in practice is typically just the moral philosophy of the dominant religion with the supernatural elements removed. My dad isn’t a believer, but thinks choosing not to have children is immoral. Why? Maybe it’s because his parents were devout Muslims and having children is an important obligation in Islam. Similarly, it’s amusing to observe how many professed atheists really just believe in the Christian social gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel) without Jesus.
I’m not saying that’s bad. But you have to understand how deeply intertwined even seemingly secular western thought is with Christianity, and doesn’t easily translate to other parts of the world.
> If I autopsy a dead body, am I going to find any evidence of those things in there?
Sure, they're a few centimeters to the right of the evidence of consciousness, just below the evidence of the Pythagorean theorem.
This sounds glib but isn't. What counts as 'evidence' and how much of it is needed for 'proof' are themselves hotly debated. Empiricism is no more a given than morality.
In woo land with my homies Poincaré, Gödel, etc. It's almost like the bedrock of knowledge is a deep philosophical question that every discipline strikes sooner or later, once they start digging. There really should be a word for it.
Certainly a respect for the individual played a role. Thomas Hobbes argued for a strong monarch specifically to protect their subjects and their subjects’ property. Other philosophers like John Lock, David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill would expand on this and build the classically liberal tradition.
But we also can’t underestimate the impact of: 1) abundant energy sources—initially wood and then coal that could power machinery. 2) a scientific tradition with engineering applications in mind. 3) the Black Plague that let people just drop their scythes and move to the city to become tradesmen and earn a better living. 4) the Common Law tradition placing property rights and the right to contract on near-sacred grounds. 5) Access to abundant fishing off the coast of what became North America.
I don't think there's any one thing we can point to explain the rise of West, it's a confluence of factors that I'm very grateful happened before I was born
6) There are several similar but different societies that shared a common ancestry (with the Romans and Greeks)
This created an intense competition where the best ideas would survive.
As trade grew so did the exchange of ideas in Europe. Different regimes had different views on intellectuals. Famously, Da Vinci and Voltaire had multiple patrons through their lives.
Not really. It’s saying increases competitive pressure results in a more-competitive output. That’s almost by definition true. Products of competition tend to be fitter than not. If ten fish of a rainbow of colors are introduced to an environment and only the red ones survive, they are fitter. If one looks at the surviving fish and concludes only red fish were introduced to the environment, that is survivorship bias.
> What made Western Europe diverge from places like Russia or Saudi Arabia?
Joseph Henrich says it’s the medieval church’s prohibition on cousin marriage, which dissolved the strong kinship bonds that dominate the rest of the world. He has a book on the subject called The WEIRDest People In The World which is good.
>What made Western Europe diverge from places like Russia or Saudi Arabia?
University level international relations courses generally start on the 30years war, I feel it is appropriate for that to be considered "the rough start" of "honest to god modernity" yeah
> What made Western Europe diverge from places like Russia or Saudi Arabia?
The Black Death increased labour’s bargaining power right before the Industrial Revolution. It’s a lucky set of quirks that gave Enlightenment-era ideas fertile soil to land on.
Why would you think you’ve dunked on him when you’re the one who is wrong? The divergence between Europe and the rest of the world began in the 15th and 16th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence. The divergence became massive during the Industrial Revolution, but it was underway long before that.
Western individualism, like nearly every other aspect of western culture, has its roots in Christianity. Europe had already diverged long before the “intelligentsia” you’re talking about.
> The things that keep the west alive are abstract, unfathomable concepts to the Ummah.
As a Muslim, this is so incorrect to the point of almost absurdity. Just because you have encountered one person who appeared to you that he did not understand or comprehend a certain topic you were explaining, does not mean that the rest of the Muslims are the same. I can point you to many many youtube channels (just as an example) on Muslim scholars, sociologists, and more living both in the Middle East and in the West who have been discussing very nuanced sociopolitical topics and how they relate to our religion.
Like I said I've been in the islamic world for a decade. I've studied Arabic/Turkish music in Iran, Egypt, Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It's not like "I met one muslim". I have spent about 20 hours per week for the past decade teaching Syrian and Yemeni refugees in Istanbul and Ankara.
Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation. Just one? As far as I can tell this only existed for the brief period from when the Turkish Cumhuriyet was established until Ataturk drank himself to death. Most are kingdoms run by rich tribal warlords.
I get your point but isn't there a built-in inconsistency in term "Islamic secular state"? I. E. Would a secular state by definition not be Islamic (or Christian etc)? Or do you mean a state with predominantly Islamic population that is democratic and secular?
By this logic such a nation does not exist, as you can’t be both Islamic and secular at the same time. You can say the same about Turkey as Indonesia, it’s a secular nation even though the majority of its population is Muslim. I think the OP comment meant to ask about a secular democracy in a country where most people are Muslim. And in that case Turkey could be an example, even though Erdogan is fairly dictator-ish, we’ll see how their elections go this year
> all nations of muslims are ruled by a-secular, illiberal dictators
This describes none of the Arab monarchies. Neither does it describe Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan. (Indonesia and Malaysia are political science’s Rorschach tests.)
Secular dictatorships in the Muslim world are the exception, unless we’re using highly unorthodox definitions of secularity or dictatorship. (Secular government in Muslim-majority countries is common; most are not dictatorships [1].)
It should go without saying that you cannot have religion be part of a secular democracy.
Turkiye has not been a secular nation for a very long time. Go read hurriyetdailynews.com, a moderately pro-government site. Currently the government is trying to make it illegal to be gay by attaching it to a bill that supposedly protects the rights of turbanli (covered women). The full text of the bill practically Turkiye into every other shariah nation.
Also read up on "Imam hatips", which are failed religious school the government forces us to pay for. Nobody wants to go to them, because the educational quality is garbage, so they actually started forcing students to go to them.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's democracy could have been the most inspiring democracy the world has known, but the democracy itself died within 10 years of him. I think we're on our 6th constitution since then.
During the 2 year "state of emergency" after the coup, he rewrote the entire constitution.
Currently there are over 250 politicians in prison from the HDP (Kurdish party), and EVERY major name in the CHP is being prosecuted, or has been convicted of "insulting the cumhuriyet" in the past 3 months.. This is the most democratic nation in the ummah. :(
Indonesia is not an Islamic state, but it is an Islamic nation. These are different. Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, making the state secular despite the official religion.
FWIW, the structure of your reply implies that "secular islamic nation" is a contradiction in terms. Maybe that was intentional, but if so it works better as a reply to GP.
How is Indonesia not an Islamic nation when now several of its provinces are legally ruled by shariah law interpreted by mullahs, not by representatives or leaders elected by the people, and when the government makes federal (parliamentary?) laws enforcing various muslim beliefs and laws?
Aceh is a weird exception in Indonesia. They were only intregrated into Dutch Indonesia in early 20th century and always had a tenuous relationship with the various Malay states and a very strong political and cultural connection with Turkiye (being a vassal of the Ottoman Empire at various times in it's history).
Also, the parts of Indonesia I've been to (mostly Java) feels much less "Islamic" on the ground than Malaysia. Yes I see hijabs fairly often, but to me at least, Islamic motifs seemed much more prominent in Malaysia and even Singapore than Java.
I gave you a very solid example of how in one large province of Indonesia, democracy and the rule of law were entirely removed and put in the hand of islamic "leaders".
And I've lived there for longer, and I speak the language and I continue to know people and travel there frequently. My points still hold.
> Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation.
Western style democracy and secularism are contradictory with Islam. To us, it is not a measure of success or prosperity. On a side note, there aren't really any fully Islamic states today - practically all of them have remnants (or more active engagement) of Western colonization and influence. I'm sure you're aware of how things have been after the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Plenty of democratic countries have monarchs. Most of Europe still has monarchs, because they're constitutional monarchies -- which is a fairly common democratic form of government.
What matters is not whether there is a king, but the details of how the specific powers are allocated between the different parts of government. Sweden is also a constitutional monarchy, with a king.
From my limited experuence, Jordan seems to be the closest example of a democrcy in the Arab world I know. Sure, it is by no means democratic when compared to Western democracies. But they do not use totalitarian and draconian measures to surpress the population on a regular basis. Nor is Jordan an outright relogiously motivated chauvinist regime. And compared to other, more democratic nations like Tunesia or Marocco, Jordan is extremely stable. Which is a value in itself.
I don't really see what this has to do with the submission.
Furthermore, I think it's a bit of a strawman to say that people who think "The West" is evil (usually in reference to the USA's long history of spying on and overthrowing countries) wouldn't also think Saudi Arabia is evil.
It sounds like you're generalizing from a couple of conversations. The Arab Spring of 2010-2012 started because citizens in the Arab world wanted more freedoms. The idea that citizens in Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria are "intellectually incapable of understanding" the idea of freedom of speech is insulting.
>The Arab Spring of 2010-2012 started because citizens in the Arab world wanted more freedoms.
I'm not sure they were. They kicked off when food prices spiked, and proximate causes were corruption and unemployment.
Officially endorsed foreign protests against government we don't particularly like are always described as being about freedom in the west for reasons that aren't always good.
>The idea that citizens in Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria are "intellectually incapable of understanding" the idea of freedom of speech is insulting.
As an Egyptian who took part of the arab spring, I really laughed on your argument (sorry no insult). But as simple as argument it is, It doesn't hold because you see the Egyptian currency is no almost 6x less with 10x or more on average for food prices and there is no movement to overthrow the current regime.
And for corruption and unemployment, they are much worse now than before. Then more than half the country are under poverty line, most of middle class became lower class in a couple of years.
There were no particular reason why the uprising happened, of course some people joined because of that. But this wasn't my reason (or majority of people I know).
> I recently tried explaining the 1st amendment to a Syrian CS student of mine. His English is very good, but the concept of inalienable rights, freedom of speech, and freedom to yell at our politicians .. he was intellectually incapable of understanding this, his society had brainwashed him so thoroughly.
Have you tried explaining them to your liberal friends in San Francisco? Their English is probably even better, but for some reason they still constantly fail to appreciate those concepts.
You're right, in a way, to call it brainwashing. But seen from another perspective, people living under authoritarian regimes simply think practically. They are aware of the acute danger to themselves and their families – all the more so as they can't just up sticks and go to live in San Francisco if they don't like it any more. The freedom of speech that only exists elsewhere might just as well not exist, and they're often tied to their country. One particularly discouraging aspect of these sentences is that they often include a long travel ban, to start upon release from prison.
For refugees I'd guess it takes a long time for them to feel safe and for the established patterns of thought to "thaw".
When I was a kid, and pestering e.g. My dad where was mom (who might be shopping or in Washroom or whatever :), sometimes in exasperation he'd reply "she in California". It was the functional equivalent of dark side of moon, or even Narnia - place you've heard of but might well not exist.
20 years later, in Canada, my job sent me to California for training. When I heard, surprisingly to myself, I hyperventilated and got an asthma attack - my adult Canadian self and the 6 year old from somewhere else colliding in their expectations and worldview reality.
Which is to say that I think you have a profound point in that somebody may be "aware" on intellectual level of different places, cultures, laws etc; and it still not feel very real or be at all relevant on practical level.
People talk about the “evil west” in context of our own self professed values. When we do things like overthrow democratically elected leaders (Iran) and prop up dictatorships that are friendly to our interests, all while talking about how great we are, that’s what evil.
The Iraq war is a textbook example of this. We claimed it was all about freedom and democracy, but the reality was that we had long supported Saddam while he fought an incredibly bloody war against Iran in the 80s, but he eventually fell out of favor when he started growing too ambitious and invade Kuwait. In the end, the US decided it would be better to just try and do the job ourselves and just overthrow him directly and nation build in our image in Iraq (and Afghanistan), surrounding Iran on both sides and setting things up for the next stage.
We all know how it turned out, both Iraq and Afghanistan are looked upon as disasters, as both countries saw untold death and destruction, and aren’t any better off for it.
Does that mean that I personally, as a citizen of the west think that the western values we profess are inferior, or have some sort of image of “noble” Muslims that are perfect and can do no wrong? Of course not. I am a reflection of the culture I was raised in and hold western values deeply. Which is why it enrages me that people chauvinistically look down upon people from other societies while ignoring the fact that we’ve gone into their countries and committed literal war crimes and pardoned the offenders. [0]
Islam brought the concept of "inalienable rights" to the West. The West still doesn't get it because in their system, emergency powers override every "inalienable right" the Westerners think they are entitled to.
Who brought these ancient Greek ideas to Western Europe?
Islam still grants inalienable rights to people that are almost lost in the West. For example: the inalienable right to privacy. Spying on people in their homes is strictly forbidden in Shari'ah, regardless of whether it's the government doing it or anyone. This concept was unheard of in Western Europe until Islam came.
Also, the idea of war crimes. Western Europeans believed that war justifies any and all cruelty to the enemy. The West still believes that, actually, even if they have signed treaties, you can see it in their actions (Libya Iraq, etc.). They learned the idea of wartime ethics through contact with the Muslims during the Crusades.
Belief in equality of opportunity is also Islamic in nature. The Greeks didn't even believe that. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers held that certain races of people were just born for slavery. This is what inspired the Christians to start the triangular slave trade and establish the race-based caste system in the Americas.
When I study European history, it makes me realize that the Dark Age was not a pause in European history like we thought, but a reset. That's because the population of Europe had been almost completely replaced. And there were many other resets before and after that one. Europe was constantly being overrun and devastated over the centuries. So those new people (Goths, Huns, Norse, etc.) who came in were not literate people, but just going off of their own traditions and whatever they learned by way of contact with their nearest neighbor civilization, who in the Age of Exploration, happened to be Muslim.
One of the cornerstones of Scythian and German civilization was this idea of dual rule, where you have one rule for war and one rule for peace. I believe this transformed into the idea of emergency powers in Western civilization. So all the freedoms you think you have are just conditional on whether or not the rulers deem it necessary to override them.
An Islamic government is severely restricted from doing most of the oppressive acts we take for granted our states will do in the West (like levying high taxes, restricting commerce, etc.), in both war and peace. If a ruler came with an idea like eminent domain, he was challenged and stopped by the scholars of Shari'ah (talking about pre-colonial times). In the West, no one challenges eminent domain.
I was looking at the sibling subthread and can tell it's a morass, but I'll just say this. Emergency powers override all freedoms. And under majority rule, minorities often do not have any way to ensure their rights will be respected by the majority.
Very interesting take on history, thank you for typing it out. I can't argue its contents, because of lack of knowledge on my part, but I appreciate the information.
Regarding the protections, it's also interesting to hear about, because usually when the topic is islam in the news, it's tied to the abuses of power in those systems, like regarding the rights of women. Makes one think just how one-sided the information is.
Regarding the emergency powers, they worry me too. Hungary, my home country, resembled a democracy somewhat before 2020, but since then, it's rule by decree - or as the running joke goes, Hungary's form of government is emergency. The EU even branded it as an "electoral autocracy" for this reason.
Try being a bisexual occultist anywhere Islam entrenched itself in government.
I might as well commit suicide if I have to go there. If they find out, I would be stoned probably immediately. Or, I've got a collection of pictures of what they do using knives - "Et tu Brute" style.
I would consider going to a Sufi controlled area. At least they have some semblance of sense.
Sufis are still fairly right-wing, except maybe the hippy westerners who go spin themselves doing the semih in the unofficial mevlevi lodges in Yelova or Konya. I've done the one in Konya actually, it's a great musical experience.
Most people who were old enough to fight in WWII are in wheelchairs or nursing homes now. Hardly comparable to Islamic regimes stoning homosexuals now.
Meanwhile, Turkish men are the most metrosexual in the world, and let's just say it 's easier to get laid in Taksim than it is in the Castro. I feel that Istanbul is actually a far gayer city than San Francisco, but everybody stays in the closet in order to survive.
You have a funny concept of free.
If I am not free to be exactly who I am, then I am not free.
If I am forced to follow a religion under penalty of death, I am not free.
If I am forced to not leave that religion under penalty of death, I am not free.
If I am forced to be straight, I am not free.
A free nation allows everybody to be free, not just the mainstream.
I've heard that from a couple Gay friends actually. They've had a better time in Istanbul's GLBT scene than in the US (though they are Latino in origin and I've heard American Gay culture has a bit of a race problem)
The entire point of democracy is it allows commoners to decide regulation, and you bet that if there was ever a true democracy in the Arab world, gays won't be welcome in it either.
The same thing happened to me when talking to friends of me who are exchange students from china (i am from central europe).
They were extremely smart but they could not understand political activism or why anyone would ever engage in that let alone be interested in politics. But of course the sample size here is n=2, not really enough to draw conclusions at all.
this comment has successfully derailed the conversation. now we're talking about the arab person's disposition to freedom like it's twenty years ago and not what the kingdom of saudi arabia does to wikipedia editors, which is what the article you're ostensibly commenting on is about. what a waste of space.
My parents lived in Jordan (as expats) for over 30 years. Back in 1980, Jordan was a very modern country and had great rulers, my father was in good relations with one of the king's sons (I don't remember which one) and he met the king several times, he was speaking highly about them and he considered Jordan one of the most modern and free Muslim countries.
At the same time, rights and freedoms are limited in most of the world, not just in the Muslim countries. There is no first amendment anywhere outside USA, there is no second anywhere else, even in Europe the rights and freedoms are very limited. For example there is something similar to 1st amendment in the Romanian Constitution, but you can still go to jail just for opinions, while in UK even for thoughts (recent event confirms that). I would not bash the Muslim countries for brainwashing, everyone is doing it.
Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. Though I do not see how mixing the state with any religion would help in this regard. But sure, let's bash all authoritarianism to avoid hypocrisy :D
I don't see how "everyone is doing it" is your reading of "some rights are more of an exception than a rule". What is the "do" part that everyone does? Not having it? The history is that there were no rights, then in some places some rights appeared, that means some countries are more or less behind, but not "doing it".
I am a bit confused by your reply. The "everyone is doing it" is your own words in reference to brainwashing? My statement was that I agree that western countries are likewise authoritarian and have issues with freedom of it's citizens. Nevertheless, I don't see a theocratic government as a step in the right direction to say the least.
My point is that Muslim countries, the religion or their theocracy (limited to only few countries, to be honest) is not the cause of the lack of freedom, you can see the lack of freedom and rights everywhere. The history of the Old World (Europe, Asia) is the cause, while USA made a positive change and huge leap forward with their revolution. Canada, Australia and New Zeeland inherited too much lack of freedom from UK, in my opinion, and that is visible from far and beyond. Also these countries are bragging with their democracy and liberalism, not Saudi Arabia or Iran.
This is wrong on every level except technical[0]. While other countries in Europe aren't as free-speech extremist as the US, there are still protections on speech in those countries. The biggest exception to that I can see in France or Germany would be the constitutional prohibitions on being a literal Nazi[1].
I Googled "romanian arrested for opinions" and got a bunch of stuff about Andrew Tate. To be clear, he wasn't arrested for opinions, he was arrested for running a sex trafficking ring.
I'll give you that the UK has some really scary anti-protest laws. Though to be clear, when I Googled "UK arrested for thoughts" I got one article about someone being arrested for praying in front of an abortion clinic, written by someone with an axe to grind about abortions. I've seen worse - I'm reminded of the recent push to ban Extinction Rebellion protests in that same country.
Without more specifics I can't elaborate further beyond "UK bad".
>there is no second (amendment) anywhere else
sigh
Say it with me now: The 2nd Amendment is not an adequate backstop against the abuse of government power.
As a specific response to things the Brits did in the colonies, it's fine. But if there's, say, a fascist uprising in the US, I do not expect private gun ownership to save me. The amount of power that a government can wield in order to roadkill you is absolutely enormous, and makes your pile of AR-15s look like child's play. In order to fight back against tyranny, you need consensus about what the tyranny even is, and that's a whole load of collective action problems. They're also adversarial - as in, if the threat is internal, then your adversary is going to use this against you. If the tyranny only affects a small group of people, then they will not have the power to fight back, even in the case where they would need to resort to guns.
[0] Well, they don't call it the First Amendment...
[1] To be clear, this is an act of self-defense against censorship. Nazis do not give two shits about your freedom of speech, except if they can use the 1st Amendment to eat itself. Affording them freedom of speech is a fool's errand.
Who was talking about Tate or "adequacy" of the second? It was just a list of examples of rights that don't exist outside USA, not about effectiveness, morality, adequacy etc. Want it or not, the world is mostly not free.
Romanian law: Law 107 of 2006.
UK: you can even find even lawyer's explanations for that prayer thing, with full details, just look for it.
Please explain how most of European countries, for example, have free speech. Most don't, Australia and Canada don't, who is left ... China or North Korea?
I was talking about Tate because that's the first thing I found in Google and you didn't provide the proper context.
Searching for Romanian Law 107 of 2006 brings up an anti-discrimination statute and an article from civic-nation.org that says[0]:
>Anti-racism Act № 107/2006 (preceded by government decree № 31/2002) prohibits the operation of organizations of fascist, racist or xenophobic nature, participation in such organizations, the use of symbols of this kind, as well as the occultism surrounding personalities who were guilty of crimes against peace and humanity. The law also foresees criminal liability for the Holocaust deniers. By the end of monitoring this Article has not been used towards anyone.
My read on this is that it's substantially similar to the German constitutional prohibition on Nazis. And as I said in the footnotes before, I do not believe Nazis are entitled to free speech, on the grounds that their explicit political ideology is to censor and kill people. If there's an example of this prohibition being unfairly used against people who are not Nazis, then I will happily rail against it and add it to my list of "shitty things governments do". But as it stands this is not "evidence that America is the only country with free speech". It's about as much of a difference as permissive licensing vs. the GPL.
I still agree that the anti-abortion protester in the UK was being censored. To square that off with my prior paragraph of assertions, anti-abortion activists don't pose a threat to free speech like how Nazis do. They are irksome and morally repugnant but not censorious.
Australia has no express right to free speech, which is a constitutional problem. However, Canada does has a right to free expression, which functions the same as it does in Europe. In either case, the amount of potential or actual harm to free speech is nowhere near "jailed for 20 years for editing Wikipedia" levels of censorship.
And America is not a free speech haven either - in fact, our censorship problem is arguably worse than Europe's. Left-wing activists were routinely investigated and attacked for decades by the CIA and FBI. The intelligence community uses classification and espionage law to silence and punish whistleblowers. This was all done under the auspices of a textually unmodified 1st Amendment.
It's not clear, at least to me, what's your actual point. You try to argue that other countries besides the US also support free speech; and your argument is that... it's actually good that they don't support free speech. I am a bit confused.
My main argument is that America is not exceptionally free, at least among western powers. Since one of the things you specifically pointed out was an anti-fascism law, I have to at least get over that rhetorical hurdle.
On paper, a law saying you can't be a particular political ideology sounds like you just tore the beating heart straight out of free speech's chest. When you realize, "oh wait it's just the Nazis", it's less bad, and in practice speech is still mostly free in countries with these laws.
And on paper America has the strongest free speech protections in the world. In practice, we've had government censorship regimes for centuries. And our legal system is entirely blind to private censorship enabled by monopolies.
Well, it wasn't me who pointed that out, but I agree with that. Whether it is bad, less bad or good is quite irrelevant to whether it is true. America had government censorship regimes for centuries, I fully agree with that. It has an awful government plagued by similar kinds of bureaucratic diseases that we can notice elsewhere. What is more, it is a quite atrocious government with regards to human rights of its non-citizens and sometimes even with regards to its own citizens. That said, it still provides far more speech protections than any other country in the world.
Wikipedia admin jailed for 32 years after alleged Saudi infiltration - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34278322 - Jan 2023 (65 comments)