Forum Topic

How's freedom going?

"US justice department removes study finding far-right extremists commit ‘far more’ violence.The US justice department has scrubbed a study from its website concluding that far-right extremists have killed far more Americans than any other domestic terrorist group, just days after a gunman fatally shot the prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk.The report, now archived, titled What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism, vanished from the Department of Justice website between 11 and 12 September, according to Jason Paladino, an independent investigative reporter who first wrote the story. Kirk, the 31-year-old Turning Point USA founder and Trump ally, was gunned down while speaking at Utah Valley University on 10 September.The vanished study opened with: “Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”Tyler Robinson, 22, has been charged with Kirk’s murder and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. In the aftermath of the shooting, Donald Trump and other Republican leaders have blamed “radical left” elements for the attack.The National Institute of Justice study, which was based on research spanning three decades, represented one of the most comprehensive government assessments of domestic terrorism patterns. It found that “militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States” and that “the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism”.Where the report once appeared, the justice department wrote it was “reviewing its websites and materials in accordance with recent executive orders”, according to 404Media, though the page is now unavailable.But the findings align with independent research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which analyzed 893 terrorist plots between 1994 and 2020. That study concluded: “Rightwing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994.”"I'm sure that there must be another, more patriotic way of explaining this. Doubtless all for the best.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/justice-department-study-far-right-extremist-violencehttps://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorismhttps://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

David Ainsworth ● 5d50 Comments

I watched the Oxford debate the other day.Kirk did very well. It looked like Abaraonye and other were a bit unprepared and could have done a bit more homework.But I didn't detect an hostilities between Kirk and those challenging him or even the audience.Kirk came across as honest, polite, respectful and a bit humble at times. Perhaps others may have a different view.

Ed Robinson ● 12h

Ed, was wasn't implying my own support for GW's actions. 

Michael Ixer ● 1d

"For example, George W Bush's actions would have been supported by most Americans post the 9/11 terrorist attack"George W Bush used the incident for his own political agenda which has little to do with 9/11.Let's not forget the Patriot Act and it's misuse."Civil Liberties ConcernsThe act has faced criticism for allowing indefinite detention of immigrants and enabling searches without consent.Legal challenges have been raised against several provisions, with some deemed unconstitutional."

Ed Robinson ● 1d

Good cartoon on FB today - AG Pam Bondi: "The DoJ will be targeting hate speech!" Reporter: "Define Hate Speech." AG: "It's speech that we hate!"

Michael Ixer ● 1d

"My understanding from my US friends over the years is that,  irrespective of political views, the President is seen to represent all in the US and as such is in return supported by all in times of difficulty and crisis. (For example, George W Bush's actions would have been supported by most Americans post the 9/11 terrorist attack.) It appears to me that Trump uses any difficult event to futher divide his country?"Apparently the Falklands War united the UK and made Thatcher much more popular. Trump seems intent upon dividing his country in a crisis. Different strokes ...Oh well, let a hundred flowers blossom. And hope that they are not mushrooms.

David Ainsworth ● 1d

Political assassinations have no place in a democracy, and can lead to disaster. For example, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife at Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 was a trigger for WWI; although I suppose the Austrian-Hungarian empire wasn't really a democracy, the assassination resulted in a most terrible outcome.Whatever, Kirk's views - and some seem rather unpleasant - killing him wasn't going to change those and one must have sympathy for his family. Sadly, perhaps, a reality is that hate breeds hate?What does concern me was the muted response President Trump had to the assassination of a US Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman in comparison with someone promoting his own views similar to MAGA aims. Instead of immediately calling Tim Waltz, Minnesota's governer, he used Hortman's death as an opportunity to insult the Democratic governer, and I understand, did not order flags to be flown at half mast for the killing on an elected Congress member, which many would have expected.My understanding from my US friends over the years is that,  irrespective of political views, the President is seen to represent all in the US and as such is in return supported by all in times of difficulty and crisis. (For example, George W Bush's actions would have been supported by most Americans post the 9/11 terrorist attack.) It appears to me that Trump uses any difficult event to futher divide his country?

Michael Ixer ● 1d

Mr Ainsworth""But, I must say, cheering the assassination of Charlie Kirk puts George Abaraonye in the category of questionable sanity....."Certainly a cruel, immoral and stupid thing to write and exult."We agree on one thing at least. '"On Thursday, Abaraonye said he had “reacted impulsively” to the news of Kirk’s shooting, and that the comments were “quickly deleted” after news emerged of his death.“Those words did not reflect my values,” Abaraonye added. “Nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence … I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones.“At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr Kirk’s own rhetoric....The classic structure of leftist defence of offensive comment attacking 'the right', particularly from ignorant and immature students.'I “reacted impulsively”'.But with sufficient forethought to post a comment on social media. 'the comments were “quickly deleted'.Once he saw the opprobrium heaped upon him, his actions indicated his cowardice.'“Those words did not reflect my values,”'So why were they used ?Obvious lies or just another social media user failing to "engage brain before using keypad".'“Nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence'.But none the less he was happy to attempt to find humour in an incident that was violent and so I don't believe him. '… I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones'."Pass the sick bag Alice".Now the weasel worded excuses.'“At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr Kirk’s own rhetoric"'.So he is the 'victim' : having himself no power of agency he was forced into making these comments by the words of others.(As reported of course in the Guardian !).How come Oxford stands so high in world university rankings when the likes of Abaraonye are examples of its student body ?

John Hawkes ● 1d

I totally agree, David.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2d

"I did not realize that Charlie Kirk and George Abaraonye had met when they took part in a debate at the Oxford Union in May.  This does not justify the messages posted by Abaraonye after Kirk was shot; they were truly unacceptable."Agreed, quite the opposite. If you have met somebody face to face and in debate, I would think that it should be less likely to seem a right thing to do.

David Ainsworth ● 2d

Perhaps this experience was a crash course in growing up for George Abaraonye... I hope so.I did not realize that Charlie Kirk and George Abaraonye had met when they took part in a debate at the Oxford Union in May.  This does not justify the messages posted by Abaraonye after Kirk was shot; they were truly unacceptable.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2d

It is good that Abaraonye has issued an apology.No one seems to be accusing him of saying anything illegal.The fact that we may disagree with his original statement makes this an example of free speech.(I've given my thoughts on Kirk's death on a seperate thread).Some people may find it distasteful and ill timed and upsetting, but free speech is the right to offend. The alternatives are far worse.However he also represents students and an institution, perhaps he should have made his point more skillfullyOr was his words meant to be controversial to get publicity to throw balance on Kirks record??Kirk was a Christian and believed people could change. Perhaps Abaraonye has changed??

Ed Robinson ● 2d

"But, I must say, cheering the assassination of Charlie Kirk puts George Abaraonye in the category of questionable sanity....."Certainly a cruel, immoral and stupid thing to write and exult.  "On Thursday, Abaraonye said he had “reacted impulsively” to the news of Kirk’s shooting, and that the comments were “quickly deleted” after news emerged of his death.“Those words did not reflect my values,” Abaraonye added. “Nobody deserves to be the victim of political violence … I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones.“At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr Kirk’s own rhetoric – words that often dismissed or mocked the suffering of others. He described the deaths of American children from school shootings as an acceptable ‘cost’ of protecting gun rights. He justified the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children, by blaming them collectively for Hamas. He called for the retraction of the Civil Rights Act, and repeatedly spread harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ and trans communities. These were horrific and dehumanising statements.”" (Gdn 13/9/25)All of which points he should have made at other times, not directly in response to the shooting of Kirk.

David Ainsworth ● 2d

Hello Steve,Quite a few friends of mine went to Oxford and also participated in Oxford Union debates.  The fact that some students there are/were pretentious and probably boring is not life threatening nor dangerous.  But, as you say, the current generation of students can be very vicious - social media influence?I had not heard of Charlie Kirk until his assassination either but what horrible news!  Whether you agreed with his politics or not, an assassination is beyond horrific!  But I believe that it is very easy to blame the Democratic Party for Charlie Kirk's, Trump's and MAGA movement views.  I call it an excuse more than a reason.  If you lose common sense, you are not suitable to rule a country.Strangely, I thought the rise of Nazism was as a result of the terrible political and economic situation from the Weimar Republic after the abdication of Kaiser Willem II and the loss of WWI.  Of course, I may be wrong.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2d

Hello Ed,You are quite right.  I put into one paragraph comments on the first three paragraphs of Steven Rose's post.  My apologies.  You are correct in saying that George Abaraonye has not had accusations of incitement.  But, I must say, cheering the assassination of Charlie Kirk puts George Abaraonye in the category of questionable sanity.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 2d

Mr RoseI was as shocked as you obviously were over the comments from George Abaraonye, the incoming President of the Oxford Union, and agree with the actions that you suggest should be carried out subsequently.I sent the following to the Oxford Union, the vice-Chancellor and Univ. his college."I have been a life member of the Oxford Union Society since 1964.I have to say how shocked I was to read of the comments recently made by the President elect George Abaraonye celebrating the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk which I consider both racist and also relishing and inciting violence against those who disagree with him.I would like to ask what was the procedure and criteria used to identify and make up the electorate that voted him into such a position ?Were members such as myself entitled to vote ?All in all the whole affair shows up both the Society and the University in general in a bad light".No response from any of the parties contacted of course, though I do read that some sort of governing body of the Union is reviewing his eligibility to take up this role in the light of his comments. And of course he is now playing the 'race card' and saying how awful it is that 'a poor, deprived black boy made good' should now be hounded on Social Media.I recall my regular Thursday night visits to the Union and the pleasure and enlightenment gained from hearing debates from the most senior of politicians and other expert speakers.Those days look to be well past and the place now seems to be just an offshoot of the 'hood' with the manners and behaviour associated with such. 

John Hawkes ● 2d

As someone, Ivonne, who used to attend and occasionally speak at Oxford Union debates back in the day, I can testify that we were pretentious and probably boring but not vicious like some of the present generation of students.I must confess that I had not actually heard of Charlie Kirk until his assassination, since when I have looked him up and tried to make sense of some of his political utterances. I think his extreme views and those of the MAGA movement in general are a reaction to the woke and anti-Western values which have captured sections of the Democratic Party, rather as Nazism was a reaction to the extremes of Bolshevism. I think that George Abaraonye and Charlie Kirk are in some ways two sides of the same coin, both displaying intolerance and a tendency to demonise their political opponents.

Steven Rose ● 2d

"That is callousness, inhumanity, abuse of freedom of speech, incitement and hate speech."Are there accusations of incitement by him?I had a quick Google and didn't see any accusations of incitement. Not someone that I would spend time reading through his posts so any link will be appreciated.

Ed Robinson ● 3d

Hello Steve,I do not think that the messages by George Abaraonye are freedom of speech one iota.  That is callousness, inhumanity, abuse of freedom of speech, incitement and hate speech.If this character is the President-elect of the Oxford Union, then we will agree that he is the wrong person for the job.  That is putting it mildly.According to the Oxford Union, it is the world's most prestigious debating society. Established in 1823 to uphold the principle of free speech, The Union is proud of its heritage as a forum for the exchange and debate of a wide range of ideas and opinions.I is very clear that George Abaraonye does not meet any of the above. 

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

I would have thought 2) should definitely be investigated.3) that would have to be applied to all political assignations including state sanctioned.1) is more difficult you could apply a set of questions but again the answers would have to apply across the political spectrum. That would be problematic given the current national and international situation and the UK's history.4) that definitely should be debated by them.I agree with the general rule that threats of violence need to be investigated from wherever they come from irrespective of political views. People should have the freedom to offend without fear of prosecution and the state does need to be kept in check as we have seen from scandal after scandal such as Horizon, Hillsborough and many others.

Ed Robinson ● 3d

I am surprised that no reference has been made on this thread to George Abaraonye, the incoming President of the Oxford Union, who posted several messages on WhatsApp cheering the assassination of Charlie Kirk and on Instagram crowing, ‘Charlie Kirk got shot lool’.According to the ‘Spectator’, a student who questioned Abaraonye’s conduct was warned on a group chat created for incoming students, ‘learn to shut the f- up because someone will teach you’. Another member of the group ‘joked’ about killing the questioning student’s mother. Another said that he deserved to have his phone number leaked.Other members of the group made comments like ‘I don’t feel bad for his widow’ and ‘I hope some of the more cowardly f-ers get scared’.Some students are now considering cancelling their Union membership. One said, ‘I thought it was a free speech society but apparently only if you think conservatives should be shot’.I have several observations to make about this abuse of free speech:1) The admissions tutors at Oxford need to think seriously about the calibre of students who are being offered places nowadays.2) The students making threats should be sent down and prosecuted.3) The President of the Union should be forced to resign from his office and he and others applauding political assassination should be disciplined by the University authorities from bringing the institution into disrepute.4) The Oxford Union should write a letter of apology to Charlie Kirk’s widow.

Steven Rose ● 3d

He was apparently arrested on suspicion of inciting violence in his tweets. I don't know if the fact he's also in the middle of a court case involving harassment and criminal damage also has a bearing on his arrest.To be honest, I don't know much about him or his actions but the incident may involve more that just some silly tweets.  Looking at Wikipedia seems to have alienated many in the entertainment industry. It seems he's been accused of doxxing people and harassment in the past.There's details on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan

Michael Ixer ● 3d

The Free Speech Union has an article on the Graham Lineham case.I've not seen the alleged criminal tweets, I'm also assuming they were made in the US.https://freespeechunion.org/graham-linehan-fundraiser-l/?v=7885444af42e

Ed Robinson ● 3d

"So how can you say you can't discuss freedom? "First rule of the forum is that there aren't any :)I just find this obsession with the US quite remarkable. That aside I do not believe I have seen one post on FBI sitting within Twitter and censoring Twitter posts. Or the acknowledgement that they were doing similar things on other social media platforms.Oddly enough no one here was saying US freedom of speech is being eroded. Nor did they say it was on amends when the FBI was kicked out!The problem is as always people will turn a blind eye to it if it means their political view is amplified.Censorship isn't a so-called far left or far right issue - it is a democracy issue and those using it should be called out for being undemocratic.As for TV shows my understanding is that companies that broadcast over the air on so called public airways are regulated quite loosely. There is probably an initiative to get them more aligned to their current government. However I think that it is difficult to complain when they have been anti Trump and turned a blind eye to issues with Biden/Harris. TV stations and Journalists shouldn't be favoring any political party but unfortunately they do.https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting

Ed Robinson ● 3d

"Like "George", the red cross and dragons Levantine chap."Or like the Angles, Who anglicised the Angles btw??

Ed Robinson ● 3d

Funnily, I think freedom of speech means you can express your views freely.  Whether you are pro-government of the day or not."I think that is what Luxemburg was saying. If you are pro-government, then you will have freedom of speech. The more difficult problem is to make sure that the government actually allows dissenters that freedom too.

David Ainsworth ● 3d

Hello David,Funnily, I think freedom of speech means you can express your views freely.  Whether you are pro-government of the day or not.Does this mean that it is the freedom of dissenters?  Hmmmm I do not think so.  It is the excuse of tyrants.You mention Rosa Luxemburg who was born in Poland in 1871, became nationalized German and who died in 1919. A very different world to today's.To be honest, I think that history repeats itself.  So the surge of tyrants does not necessarily surprise me, but it certainly depresses me.  The fact that history repeats itsef is a demonstration that people do not learn from past experiences.....  Perhaps because it all happened a generation or two ago?

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

"However, it seems irrational to me that now freedom of speech in the US seems to be "as long as you agree with Trump and his government.""The R4 News Quiz today drew my attention to a quote from Rosa Luxemburg:-"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."Translated from the German literally: "Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently."

David Ainsworth ● 3d

Hello Michael,I agree with you.  The problem is that Vance and co have criticized the UK for "lack of freedom of speech".  Incitement to violence is not freedom of speech.However, it seems irrational to me that now freedom of speech in the US seems to be "as long as you agree with Trump and his government."What is the saying?  Do not throw stones from glass houses?

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

This thread seems to be firing off in all directions ... The primary focus should be of freedoms in the UK. One has to accept others views are often going to be unacceptable. I guess one has to consider the detrimental affect a statement has and the affect on its audience ? Is it worth looking at some scenarios?If someone wants to believe the Earth is flat or is only 6,000 years old then they're not going to cause much harm, but one might want to correct that to stop people being mislead - and their should be adequate evidence to do that easily.If someone is an antivaxxer, then there is a potential for harm, as has been shown by the measles outbreak and deaths in Texas. There's plenty of evidence that vaccines over the years have saved countless lives from diseases such as polio, smallpox, measles, flu, covid, etc. But, one has to be honest, as with any medicine there may be side effects, and that may cause significant problems for some, maybe even death, but one has to balance that against the risk of death from the disease and for adults it should be their own decision whether to take the medicine or vaccine. (That’s why there big data analysis of dna, epigenetics, medical outcomes, mRNA, etc research to match drugs to individuals.)The last case is incitement. If one suggests burning down a hotel or shooting someone I can't see any excuse for that not being treated as a crime. Even if said in the heat of the moment and not truly intended it's reckless and could result in someone taking action that causes deaths or injuries - it can certainly result in violent protests. Obviously, there will be degree of harm between those examples and, surely, the outcomes are best left for the courts to decide?Is it relevant what happens in the US? Well, if censorship is applied in the US where most of our social media data is processed and many website hosting services are based, I'd say 'yes'. If 'X' or FB decides, to use a hypothetical example, to delete posts negative to or prioritise post for a particular UK political party - or even doesn't bother ?to stop another party doing that - doesn’t the UK have a problem. (Ive seen some in the US now call 'X' 'Xitter', presumably pronounced 'zitter'?)There's also the issue of the current administration seeking to ban comments in the US media that President Trump dislikes; is that an idea he's got from President Putin, someone he seems on good terms with and who also dislikes negative media coverage? Would Mr Farage, who has aspirations to be the UK's next MP, who is a friend of and admirer of President Trump and appear at times on Mr Putin's Russia Today, also like to ban adverse reporting?Some of that forward thinking speculation but freedoms can be easily lost ... so worthwhile considering and discussing to head off before they happen?

Michael Ixer ● 3d

Mr Brigo'All of these are supposed to be protected under the first amendment.'I think you misunderstand the meaning of 'free speech' and protection given to it under the US Constitution.Americans are free to say what they like in the main, but private media outlets have no obligation to air these views.If they choose not to there is no restriction on someone setting up a rival media outlet that will do so.The UK is moving more in this direction as no longer does the BBC have a monopoly of broadcasting or not views it does or does not agree with.

John Hawkes ● 3d

That's just reminded me of the George W quote about the French not having a a word for "entrepreneur" :-)

Michael Ixer ● 3d

"in some cases even anglicising them."Like "George", the red cross and dragons Levantine chap.

David Ainsworth ● 4d

It must be the 3rd or 4th time you have raised freedom of speech in the UK on various threads. So how can you say you can't discuss freedom? wouldnt the police have arrested you by now.Anyway my point is that yet again you try to divert a thread over to your pet topic. I will happily discuss UK freedom of speech with you - on a thread about UK freedom of speech.Otherwise - why not engage (for once) on the topic in hand?

Michael Brigo ● 4d

These foreign words, coming over here, sneaking their way into our language, it's just not good enough.Our language is of course ever-evolving and has taken on many thousands of foreign words over the centuries, in some cases even anglicising them.

Jonathan Callaway ● 4d

"First of all it's only after you achieve freedom of speech at home then you can comment on other countries."Oh well, that rather kiboshes# the Forum. But I'm sure that we all have other important things to do.# kibosh:- A word of an unknown origin. First seen in English early 19th C. Possible origins: Ottoman Turkish or Arabic, Irish, Yiddish, Middle English, Middle French.AI:-"The phrase "put the kibosh on" appeared in English use around 1834, with early documented instances found in London journals following a magistrate's court case. The phrase became popular, appearing in sources like a Cockney chimney sweep's remark and Charles Dickens's Sketches by Boz in the mid-1830s. Despite its relatively young age and colloquial nature, the word's exact origin remains uncertain, with several theories including Arabic, Irish, and Yiddish, though no single theory is definitively proven."I'm sure that we have some perfectly OK equivalent English words, so maybe we should abandon "kibosh".

David Ainsworth ● 4d

I agree, Michael I,Elon Musk's meddling is unacceptable.  Also, JD Vance saying it was unacceptable the lack of freedom of speech in the UK..The odd thing is that now:Trump says TV networks opposed to him should 'maybe' lose licencehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4qe0rz2zvo

Ivonne Holliday ● 4d

Muppet Brigo"It's really not difficult to understand Ed, this thread is about freedom of speech in the US. If you want to discuss freedom of speech in the UK, start your own thread."Well if we don't have freedom in the UK how can we discuss freedom in the US?An illogical statement by Mr Brigo.First of all it's only after you achieve freedom of speech at home then you can comment on other countries.Secondary it is a SW15 forum and last time I checked the US postcodes were not part of it!

Ed Robinson ● 4d

The Trump administration uses the assassination of a defender of Free Speech as a tool to destroy Free Speech."In the week since conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated at a Utah university event, comments from some of his critics have ignited a battle over free speech in an increasingly polarized nation.Kirk, who routinely debated progressive students at his Turning Point USA events and espoused controversial opinions on his podcast, was a stalwart proponent of the First Amendment. "Hate speech does not exist legally in America," he wrote on X last year. "There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment."But over the last several days, the administration he supported and the president he helped reelect have vowed to crack down on some speech about his death."  (CBS News today).------------------------“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

David Ainsworth ● 4d

Possibly because Elon and co give their views on the UK's laws?

Michael Ixer ● 4d

What is wrong with suggesting that we look at the situation in this country if we direct criticism at other countries?

Steven Rose ● 4d

Well, who was "trying to silence" whom? Mr Robinson wrote "One does wonder why people do not look at home or nearer to shore rather than obsession over the US."

David Ainsworth ● 4d

It seems to me, Michael, that you are trying to silence Ed, which is rather ironic given the topic. It is perfectly reasonable to raise the issue of free speech in this country in a thread bemoaning the lack of free speech in America since the principle at issue is the same.

Steven Rose ● 4d

It's really not difficult to understand Ed, this thread is about freedom of speech in the US. If you want to discuss freedom of speech in the UK, start your own thread.

Michael Brigo ● 4d

"police turning up in the early hours because someone didn't like a social media post then I will start to worry!"It was a Labour Minister's Chief of Staff who reported the 54 year-old woman and triggered the 4am police raid. And now there is a trial. National newspapers have seemed uninterested in the case. I'm not sure why. 4am police raids are not usual.

David Ainsworth ● 4d

When they start arresting comedians at the airport or police turning up in the early hours because someone didn't like a social media post then I will start to worry! Wait that's the UK! On a serious note the Free Speech Society website is worth a visit. As I highlighted before there is now a European tendency to use the law to shutdown perfectly legitimate conferences and debates that just do not align with the authorities political view. One does wonder why people do not look at home or nearer to shore rather than obsession over the US. https://futurefreespeech.org/the-free-speech-recession-hits-home/

Ed Robinson ● 4d

There's enough examples of people losing their jobs or being threatened for making comments about Charlie Kirk's murder - some distasteful - some just expressing concern about where it leads.Or you can look at the immediate cancellation of the Jimmy Kimmel show after he made comments and of course Stephen Colbert who was cancelled before him for making anti-trump comments. All of these are supposed to be protected under the first amendment. Oddly calling for violence against people on the left doesnt get you cancelled?There are many, many more examples available but as you never bother to read posts that you disgree with I don't see the point of engaging further.

Michael Brigo ● 4d

Mr Brigo'Freedom of speech is rapidly being eroded in the US.'Examples ?Still alive and well on Putney Forum !

John Hawkes ● 4d

King Donald doesn't seem sure about the First Amendment https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-abc-reporter-hate-speech-free-speech_n_68c98777e4b04bfe9a7025a3Let's hope Sir Kier has explained the First Amendment to him :-)And there seems to be some unease within God's Own Party ...https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-charlie-kirk-crackdown_n_68cb18e1e4b0a2e5bdc6dc35

Michael Ixer ● 4d

Freedom of speech is rapidly being eroded in the US.

Michael Brigo ● 4d

Mr AinsworthGive your boring AI generated attacks on our ally the USA a rest and look around for other countries that are more worthy of your condemnation.I think the USA and its unfettered means of expressing all political views is well protected by its Constitution and doesn't need any faults pointed out to it by someone from West  Putney who appears rabidly and neurotically to despise it.

John Hawkes ● 4d