> America has a lot of quirks and problems, but in not many other countries can you flagrantly criticize/insult the government/leaders without repercussion.
This is possible in most of the developed world. You don't have to have the peculiarities of the American concept of "freedom" to have this one. Someone in Norway gets to enjoy both healthcare and being able to make mean comments about the Prime Minister.
Not so. UK, Germany, and indeed most of the EU have significant speech restrictions accompanied by censorship or jail time if you violate them.
I'm not super familiar with Norway's speech protections, but it has a smaller population than the US state of Maryland, so it seems to be the exception more than the rule or at least not an easily scalable solution to America's problems. Saying "[Insert Scandinavian country proves it's possible]" is like saying "Look at how well Hacker News is moderated! Facebook and Twitter should take notes on how to do it right and fix the moderation issues with their services."
They have very specific speech restrictions around things like Holocaust denial, not "flagrantly criticizing the government". I'll happily give up freedom to publicly be a neo-Nazi if it gives me freedom from "out of network" healthcare bills.
Neither society is 100% free; that's the point, really. The trade-offs like this that the American system has selected seem insane.
Googling Heinrich Bücker doesn't turn up much other than "World Socialist Web Site", and it appears Germany permits opposition to war just fine; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa0PevmD6EI
America is like a union of 50 countries, yet the things you chose to criticize were for the most part not federal level restrictions, but rather cherry-picked quirks of individual states.
> They have very specific speech restrictions around things like Holocaust denial, not "flagrantly criticizing the government".
Germany, maybe. In UK a scottish man was arrested for tweeting "The only good brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuurrn." about the late Tom Moore. Apparently being arrested for offensive tweets is not uncommon in the UK. Lots of arrested around the time of the queen's death for making fun of the monarchy/dead queen.
> Novak v. City of Parma, No. 21-3290, is a 2022 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granting qualified immunity to the city of Parma, Ohio, and its officials for prosecuting Anthony Novak over a Facebook page parodying the Parma Police Department's page. As of December 2022, the case is pending certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States.
> cherry-picked quirks of individual states
Civil forfeiture? Healthcare? Incarceration? Paid leave? These are each widespread national problems in the US.
Googling ‘arrested for tweeting uk’ brings up some daily mail stories which are quoted in brietbart and other similar websites. Can you find a link to a reliable source? E.g Telegraph, Guardian, Times, Financial Times.
Also in the UK being arrested doesn’t equate to being punished, legally the police have to arrest you before you can be questioned.
It was dozens of Canadians, it was a transaction freeze by certain banks for a few days, and it was because there was a suspicion of contributing to terrorist organizations. It was not an action by the government and the freeze was lifted quite quickly once the facts were established.
No. Here's a protip which applies to every country across the globe: if you're donating money to people doing things your government decided is illegal with the express purpose of enabling continued illegal acts, you're gonna have a bad time.
99.8% of Canadians would like to have a word with you to explain why funding organizations with the public and express raison d'etre of overthrowing the government might get you a finger waggling.
No, not that statement on its own, and no one's seen jail time in Norway for hate speech alone. The post specifically targeted an individual for harassment.
And, again, these tend to be matter of perspective; balancing the right of free speech against the right to be free of discrimination. Each country is picking in these scenarios where rights conflict; I tend to prefer Norway's selections.
This is possible in most of the developed world. You don't have to have the peculiarities of the American concept of "freedom" to have this one. Someone in Norway gets to enjoy both healthcare and being able to make mean comments about the Prime Minister.