The UK should make their own rules.
However, speech is not protected at private American business.
I’m sorry - I may be being stupid but I really don’t understand what you’ve written. Are you saying that, in America, there are limitations on “free speech” or there are no limitations?
So called free speech or 1st amendment rights apply to the government limiting speech, not individual people or private business.
That concept, and the line that divides them, is continually being argued and tossed about in current day America.
2 Likes
The first 10 Amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights limits the government.
Among other things the First Amendment covers the right to free speech.
The government can not limit free speech (except in some jealously guarded conditions.)
I have no free speech protection from my employer while at work.
I have no free speech protection in my neighbor’s house.
I have no free speech protection on this website.
Colin Kaepernick had no free speech protection while in the performance of his employment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You beat me to it. Well said.
@Hunterwali , @small_h I do understand and agree that ethical use of a platform is essential, and policing it could be justified, but only if such branding is same for everyone. For example if Party A and Party B vandalize public property, both should be wrong. But if Party A is branded as freedom fighters and Party B is branded as vandals then I don’t see any justice there.
As I’ve said in my previous post, if justice is defined based on political affiliation then that’s not right. Some organizations that came to the field as “committed to fair play” have turned in to political arms of some systems. Wikipedia is a prime example for that.
However, as I said earlier, I am just an outsider. So I’ll stop talking about US politics now. 
1 Like
And I’ll ask you again for sources. The ones you provided earlier did not prove your point about Firefox. And we’re not talking about justified vs unjustified property damage. We’re talking about the spread of misinformation.
I did actually show you at least partially that Firefox cannot be entirely trusted. The chairwoman herself taking one side in a political drama is proof enough that you cannot trust them in a political scenario. There were a lot of other analyses about this but now I cannot find them. I guess Google algorithms have killed them for spreading “disinformation.” lol.
Source about an organization that turned into a political system? I’ve already given a good example. Wikipedia.
And “misinformation” is the word used by many organizations to control others’ opinions. Their tactic is, as I said, “you don’t agree with my political vision, I’m going to cut you out based on my definition of ‘misinformation.’”
(I am just chatting my friend, not arguing. 
)
Another example of just how different America seems to be , from my country.
Here, for example, individuals may not defame (by slander or libel) another individual and have the protection of a “free speech” defence. Nor may organisations, such as a newspaper, defame an individual. There are also several laws making what is commonly known as “hate speech” a criminal offence.
3 Likes
But you haven’t offered a shred of evidence. And if you’re worried about Google suppressing results (a viewpoint expressed by my more conspiracy-minded friends), there are other search engines at your disposal.
1 Like
Slander and libel statutes exist in every state of the union.
And by the way, in America no right is absolute.
2 Likes
Are you referring to her asking for more transparency? How is this “taking one side,” unless one side is opposed to transparency? And if it is, that side is, well, wrong.
Thanks for that. I think that means that Americans have the legal right to free speech but only when it doesnt contravene laws that prevent free speech. That makes much more sense.
1 Like
Saying that indicates you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the term free speech.
I take you back you my original examples.
I have no free speech protection from my employer while at work.
I have no free speech protection in my neighbor’s house.
I have no free speech protection on this website.
Colin Kaepernick had no free speech protection while in the performance of his employment.
Otherwise if you’re happy I’m happy.
1 Like
I have three personal cars two of which have ~20k mi on them. I’m nearing retirement (maybe in 3 years) so I can probably hold off buying again. I’m thinking it through.
Anyone contemplating buying an electric car?
If so which and why?
Oh, I’m sure you’re absolutely correct about that. Still, been nice chatting about things in foreign countries. As I’ve said before, in spite of us generally sharing a common language, I have always found America to be the most “foreign” country I visit. So different.
1 Like
On a scale of 1 to 10, I give America a 1776.
We are in a similar position. Mr Bean’s car is 5 years old but only has about 30K miles. It’s a fairly impractical soft-top convertible which he loves so I think he plans on keeping it for as long as he can.
The car I drive is leased through work. Unless things with auto supplies changes significantly, I expect to buy it the end of the lease which is in 6 months. I plan on keeping it for another 5-7 years and that the next car after it be electric and my last car. I’m thinking the extra time will make electric cars the majority on the road and that local mechanics have more experience with them.
3 Likes
Yeah, our situations are similar. I bounce between cold and warm locations. Two cars are hardtop convertibles and a winter SUV. My driving is only local so electric would work here. I just don’t know about doing it. It kinda makes sense.
