What do you think about the freedom of speech in the USA?

[GrLinkey]

I live in Russia (note that I support Ukraine), and I was saddened by the bad news: youtube blocked a popular pro-Putin channel “Besogon”. This means that the author of this channel and his subscribers will switch from youtube to Russian alternative rutube. When rutube accumulates a sufficiently large number of subscribers, youtube in Russia will be blocked, all Russians will have to switch to rutube, and this will be very bad, because Russians will lose the opportunity to watch anti-Putin content (there is strict censorship on rutube). I am very afraid of this because I watch youtube much (anti-Putin videos).
In this regard, I have a question: who is responsible for blocking pro-Putin channels on youtube? Is this a decision made by Google management, or they have to comply with some US laws?
And what do you think about the freedom of speech in the USA? How massively are the Trumpists blocked in the media? And do the Trumpists support the censorship in their media, which is consistent with their views?

I don't plagiarize

[Hispo]

I think it is both a consequence of the policies of Google and also the policies if the United States government. It is a very difficult problem from them to tackle, because most of the Pro-Putin propaganda could contain important amounts of misinformation, they do not want misinformation to spread in the west so they choose to take those channels and videos down their platform, it is an approach which seeks to keep people in the USA away from that propaganda in detriment of the Russian people access to YouTube. For Google and the USA, it is more important the public in their country to stay in their side and the public opinion to be pro-Ukraine.

I don't completely agree with that strategy, though. I think any kind of content is supposed to be allowed there when comes to news and politics, let people to debate and collide their ideas. You must also keep in mind that the free of speech does not apply to users of private companies, like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. if the government of the United States was the owner of YouTube, then they would be forced to respect the first amendment rights of the users (at least those who reside in the USA or are American citizens).

I did not know about the Kremlin's plan to block YouTube, by the way, but does not surprise me at all.

[Ucy]

Alot of Americans seem to want an absolute kind of freedom of speech, and I can understand why. The belief is that if you don't allow it, a tyrant or an evil dictator will abuse the power by censoring opponents who don't deserve to be censored or things they don't like whether good or bad.
But I think there should be basic rules on things to censor and not to censor.  And everybody, including companies like YouTube has to abide by the rules. Unfortunately, the current trend of censorship doesn't seem fair. .. Mods censor things that ought not to be censored while allowing those that ought to be censored.
I think the whole content moderation thing should be opened to everyone rather than left in the hands of bias minds and people who can't properly interpret the law or judge correctly. With this method, the pro putin or neutral people can uncensor and unbanned wrongly censored people based on the rules that are violated by the biased or anti-putin people.

[pooya87]

And what do you think about the freedom of speech in the USA? How massively are the Trumpists blocked in the media? And do the Trumpists support the censorship in their media, which is consistent with their views?

Freedom of speech has pretty much the same definition everywhere: You are allowed to say things that the regime likes, otherwise it will be silenced.

The only difference is their methods of silencing it and what the regimes doesn't like aka the "red lines".

For example in US the red line doesn't seem to be about supporting or not supporting a president (previous or incumbent). This is why you can freely find a lot of content pro and against both the incumbent president (Biden) and the previous one (Trump).
In Russia this may be different and the red line could be any content against the incumbent president (I'm guessing based on your comment) hence Russia censors anti-Putin content in their platform.

Obviously for a lot of reasons these "red lines" are different in different countries.
In my opinion the best and most recent example of the true meaning of "Freedom of Speech" in United States is the medieval style inquisition of presidents of 3 universities (Harvard, MIT, UPenn) by the Congress just because some students protested and wanted the genocide of Palestinians to stop. Or the arresting of hundreds of Jews in USA just because they protested against Israel.

[kentrolla]

It applies for all the countries and not only limited to America or Russia. You have freedom of speech until you don't go against the regime, once you start raising your voice against the injustice don't by regime you will be silenced and its happening throughout the world. Nowadays freedom of speech is being misused as well to abuse a particular religion or sect in the name of freedom of speech. I think people need to understand the importance of freedom of speech use it for right reasons instead of harassing, insulting and calling it freedom of speech.

[tsaroz]

It applies for all the countries and not only limited to America or Russia. You have freedom of speech until you don't go against the regime, once you start raising your voice against the injustice don't by regime you will be silenced and its happening throughout the world. Nowadays freedom of speech is being misused as well to abuse a particular religion or sect in the name of freedom of speech. I think people need to understand the importance of freedom of speech use it for right reasons instead of harassing, insulting and calling it freedom of speech.

There are multiple factors that affects the tolerance of free speech in every country. Democratic country with less powerful governments are likely to have more freedom of speech and the countries with ruthless autocratic government would have less freedom of speech.
Neither US nor Russia are example of a free society. US used to have a much free society but with the creation of information barrier to the public, punishing any rhetoric that's against the regime and crushing the opposition, it's moving towards the path shown by Russia and China.
I believe in total freedom of speech. When there's healthy discussion there would be a path towards conciliation. Banning the nazi salute might have made it more popular than it could have if not given any special treatment.

[suchmoon]

In this regard, I have a question: who is responsible for blocking pro-Putin channels on youtube? Is this a decision made by Google management, or they have to comply with some US laws?

This has very little to do with laws. As defined in the constitution (i.e. 1st amendment), one is allowed to speak, have religious beliefs, criticize the government, etc without being prosecuted by said government. Being banned from a website does not really impede freedom of speech. Surely Google would remove content and/or ban creators if they did break laws but platforms like youtube also have their own rules, which may be (and usually are, even in this forum) stricter than the laws theoretically allow.

And what do you think about the freedom of speech in the USA? How massively are the Trumpists blocked in the media? And do the Trumpists support the censorship in their media, which is consistent with their views?

Are you serious? Blocked in what media? There are entire TV channels broadcasting trumpism 24/7. Freedom of speech doesn't mean they must be allowed on EVERY channel/website/etc, just as it doesn't mean that Biden must be allowed on Newsmax etc.

[LTU_btc]

So, you think that Youtube should allow these pro-Putin channels to continue spreading propaganda? After all, Google/Youtube is private company and they can decide what is better for their business. After all, it's not written in constitution that everyone has right to have Youtube channel.
Censorship isn't perfect solution, but I think it's better option than allowing to spread propaganda freely. Don't forget that these channels is targeted on Russians only. It's also made to brainwash people of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. They also actively maintain English language channels which are trying to look like opposition for mainstream media and targets Western people.
About blocking Youtube - if they haven't done it in 2 years of war, I doubt they're planning to block it anytime soon. Despite censorship, it remains important tool for their propaganda machine.
About freedom of speech in USA - I don't live there to respind, but looking from outside, things looksnot so bad. Maybe in most popular media you won't see many pro-Trump opinions. But as said above, there is channels which shows trumpism 24/7, Fox probably is most prominent example.

[paxmao]

So, you think that Youtube should allow these pro-Putin channels to continue spreading propaganda? After all, Google/Youtube is private company and they can decide what is better for their business. After all, it's not written in constitution that everyone has right to have Youtube channel.
Censorship isn't perfect solution, but I think it's better option than allowing to spread propaganda freely. Don't forget that these channels is targeted on Russians only. It's also made to brainwash people of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. They also actively maintain English language channels which are trying to look like opposition for mainstream media and targets Western people.
About blocking Youtube - if they haven't done it in 2 years of war, I doubt they're planning to block it anytime soon. Despite censorship, it remains important tool for their propaganda machine.
About freedom of speech in USA - I don't live there to respind, but looking from outside, things looksnot so bad. Maybe in most popular media you won't see many pro-Trump opinions. But as said above, there is channels which shows trumpism 24/7, Fox probably is most prominent example.

TwitterX decided a while ago to put a mark on unverified sources and to mark some of the information as "possibly not accurate" or something like that. Most people publishing information have some short of stance, but it is a problem when they do not start respecting the basic facts. That is you can argue is "5" is a big or a small number to boredom, but what you cannot say is that it is "4".

[OgNasty]

Freedom of speech is overall a good thing.  The oppression of people's ability to spread information should never be tolerated by society.  However, many people use this along with the internet to harass or spread lies about people.  This is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated, but you can't expect everyone to dive head first into drama to figure out who the liar is.  This is why I feel that society needs to bring back the acceptance of people being punched in the face.  Nowadays if you bump someone walking by them it can be considered assault.  When I was a kid you'd beat someone bloody and then shake hands afterwards.  People are just way too comfortable spreading lies nowadays without fear of being punched in the face.  I think this needs to make a comeback in society.  Punching liars in the face should be welcomed by society, not looked down upon.  I fear that instead we're going to see a massive increase in the enforcement of libel laws, which will make lawyers happy and overwhelm courts with nonsense...

[btc78]

I think it depends on which country the watcher is from if you are not from the United States then you might still be able to watch a video that is blocked in youtube in the United States

Youtube mostly listens to their audience so if there are a lot of people reporting a video, they might review it and see if it violates any of their regulations

[bluebit25]

(...)
who is responsible for blocking pro-Putin channels on youtube? Is this a decision made by Google management, or they have to comply with some US laws?
And what do you think about the freedom of speech in the USA? How massively are the Trumpists blocked in the media? And do the Trumpists support the censorship in their media, which is consistent with their views?

I think no one, Google's policy can be made immediately during use and I have no doubts about the government's involvement in such acts, although it can also be speculation. But let's understand a little more so we don't get led into the situation. There are many reasons for the YT channel being blocked. If that channel propagates things like the OP mentioned, then I can also speculate that users object. A report will be issued, which may cause the channel to stop working.

Regarding freedom , I actually feel quite funny with the crowd when they bring up rights without first fulfilling their own obligations, is it okay to speak freely or not? Or some people who like to criticize may say baseless distorted things, and that is really toxic. I appreciate human rights, but before demanding everything, let's look back to see what each of us has contributed to freedom, or are we trying to increase conflicts and lead those who lack knowledge.

[Kelward]

I see freedom of speech as a two edged sword, governments and citizens abuse it, if freedom of speech is against a present regime, they can turn it to be hate speech, while individuals can abuse the rights to air their views. Governments likes to control the media in their favor, to let everything that comes out of it to speak good of them, anything contrary will be considered as a threat, while some people will go to extents to tarnish government image and reputations unjustly.

Blocking of pro Putin, channel on YouTube, can be for the interest of the US government, because this is a company owned by American, same thing can happen for Russia, to block pro American, channels from airing in their own version of YouTube, in the end you'll find out that governments have influences over the media outlets in their counties. I think that social media should be a free space where people or associations can speak their minds,  but without regulations some people can words that can propagate hatred and violence, this is why I said that freedom of speech is a two edged sword.

[God bless u]

It applies for all the countries and not only limited to America or Russia. You have freedom of speech until you don't go against the regime, once you start raising your voice against the injustice don't by regime you will be silenced and its happening throughout the world. Nowadays freedom of speech is being misused as well to abuse a particular religion or sect in the name of freedom of speech. I think people need to understand the importance of freedom of speech use it for right reasons instead of harassing, insulting and calling it freedom of speech.

Against the government anywhere, no permission in this way I have also traveled about four countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, I am talking about the Gulf countries. You can't say whatever you are speaking, it should not be against the country, the current government should not be against its head, then whatever you say, you have the right to freedom of opinion. No one can give you this advice, no matter who is in the government, what is the country, they will never give you permission to do this.

[GrLinkey]

Censorship isn't perfect solution, but I think it's better option than allowing to spread propaganda freely.

You are wrong. Such choices finally lead to the domination of the propaganda of other side.
If there is a channel which spreads lies, you should not block it, but create 3 more channels which expose these lies.
Usually the propaganda is based not on fake news but on hiding some facts and favoring the other ones:

[LTU_btc]

You are wrong. Such choices finally lead to the domination of the propaganda of other side.
If there is a channel which spreads lies, you should not block it, but create 3 more channels which expose these lies.
Usually the propaganda is based not on fake news but on hiding some facts and favoring the other ones:

You have good point, but unfortunately these things doesn't work in reality. You can create as many channels as you want where lies is exposed and debunked, but people just don't care. Majority don't watch or don't read such articles. Nowadays it's enough clickbait title or photoshoped image to spread fakes. This is why we have so many people believing in all kinds of conspiracy theories.
And your image is perfect example how easy to manipulate people.

[Gormicsta]

I think it is both a consequence of the policies of Google and also the policies if the United States government. It is a very difficult problem from them to tackle, because most of the Pro-Putin propaganda could contain important amounts of misinformation, they do not want misinformation to spread in the west so they choose to take those channels and videos down their platform, it is an approach which seeks to keep people in the USA away from that propaganda in detriment of the Russian people access to YouTube. For Google and the USA, it is more important the public in their country to stay in their side and the public opinion to be pro-Ukraine.

I don't completely agree with that strategy, though. I think any kind of content is supposed to be allowed there when comes to news and politics, let people to debate and collide their ideas. You must also keep in mind that the free of speech does not apply to users of private companies, like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. if the government of the United States was the owner of YouTube, then they would be forced to respect the first amendment rights of the users (at least those who reside in the USA or are American citizens).

I did not know about the Kremlin's plan to block YouTube, by the way, but does not surprise me at all.

One attainable answer would be to establish an open and responsible verification process. This might include separate sets that check the correctness of information and news items, as well as explicit labeling of content to indicate whether it has been confirmed or not. This would provide individuals access to a variety of perspectives while also providing an approach to verify the integrity of the material they're reading or watching. It's a complex subject with no simple solution, but I believe it's necessary to find a method to combine liberty of choice with the need for reliable and accurate information.

[BADecker]

Freedom of speech is overall a good thing.  The oppression of people's ability to spread information should never be tolerated by society.  However, many people use this along with the internet to harass or spread lies about people.  This is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated, but you can't expect everyone to dive head first into drama to figure out who the liar is.  This is why I feel that society needs to bring back the acceptance of people being punched in the face.  Nowadays if you bump someone walking by them it can be considered assault.  When I was a kid you'd beat someone bloody and then shake hands afterwards.  People are just way too comfortable spreading lies nowadays without fear of being punched in the face.  I think this needs to make a comeback in society.  Punching liars in the face should be welcomed by society, not looked down upon.  I fear that instead we're going to see a massive increase in the enforcement of libel laws, which will make lawyers happy and overwhelm courts with nonsense...

Part of the answer is in citizenship. More of it is in the legal meanings of the words "people" and "persons."

A citizen loses some rights by being under the authority of whatever he is a citizen of. In America, to keep this from happening to men and women, the government was set up with a distinction between people and persons. You can see it when you look at the many time the word 'person' is used in the Constitution, and the few times the word 'people' is used. People are flesh and blood human beings, but persons are names on paper - just a bunch of words - like the Constitution.

Government got around this by offering citizenship to the freed slaves through the 14th Amendment. Then they tricked us all into signing up for slaves rights, thereby becoming 14th Amendment citizens... as opposed to being free people.

People are men and women. Persons are their names on paperwork. Legally, when a man/woman says that he/she is a particular person, government can only go by what the man/woman says. The man or woman has essentially made himself or herself into the name on a piece of paper... liable for all the activity required by the piece of paper.

If we maintained our status ans people, and didn't succumb to being persons when someone named us - like a judge in court - their fake person wouldn't be us humans. In fact, when they use our info that is written on some of our paperwork, they are breaking their Oath to uphold the 4th Amendment; we are to be secure in all our persons. They have taken some of our 'persons' info and made a new fake person that they are using in court to trick us into saying that we are that person.

Freedom of speech should only be used to condemn a man or woman when they use it to harm someone, damage property not their own, or threaten such (with a real, direct threat). Other than that, freedom of speech is only the sound of the wind. If a name (person) is on a paperwork indictment, and the person is found guilty, punish the indictment paperwork. Burn it in the fire (execution), or file it in a filing cabinet (prison for it), and let the man/woman go free.

[GrLinkey]

Freedom of speech should only be used to condemn a man or woman when they use it to harm someone, damage property not their own, or threaten such (with a real, direct threat). Other than that, freedom of speech is only the sound of the wind. If a name (person) is on a paperwork indictment, and the person is found guilty, punish the indictment paperwork. Burn it in the fire (execution), or file it in a filing cabinet (prison for it), and let the man/woman go free.

In Russia, we have a proverb "The truth is born in dispute". This means that is some mass media spreads lies and propaganda - it is possible to make the viewers understand this, if they see other mass media with an exposures. And I am sure this is the only right way.

[xandriel]

YouTube is just a company trying to make money. They don't have a responsibility to protect freedom of speech (even though they claim they do). And they have many problems with customers and governments who are against Putin. So they just make moves to protect their profits. I can understand that.