Very hard to take an index about “freedom of expression” seriously when the United States, a country with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is ranked lower than the United Kingdom, which prosecutes hundreds of people for political speech every year.
The index by Reporters Without Boarders is primarily about whether a newspaper or reporter can say something without consequences or interference. Things like a competitive media environment seem to be part of the index (The USAs scorecard says “media ownership is highly concentrated, and many of the companies buying American media outlets appear to prioritize profits over public interest journalism”). Its an important thing, but its not the same thing you are talking about.
The second one, from “our world in data”, ultimately comes from this (https://www.v-dem.net/documents/56/methodology.pdf). Their measure includes things like corruption, whether political power or influence is concentrated into a smaller group and effective checks and balances on the use of executive power. It sounds like they should have called it a “democratic health index” or something like that instead of a “freedom-of-expression index”.
The last one is just a survey of what people think should be allowed.
It might be the case that the US has higher protections for freedom of expression, in terms of spoken or written text. I would certainly agree that some of the restrictions in central Europe are rather onerous. However, as someone who has lived in central Europe, it seems that central Europe allows for considerably higher freedom of political expression for the average person where it counts: at the polls. We have various voting systems that favor a plurality of parties instead of first-past-the-post systems like in the UK or the US.
Therefore I would call the statement from the OP by Richard Ngo “unresponsiveness to public opinion that we see today in England, France, and Germany.” factually incorrect.
On the other hand, people from the United States are often the first to tell you that “freedom of speech” is not a general aspiration for making the world a better place, but merely a specific amendment to their constitution, which importantly only applies to censorship done directly by the government… therefore it does not apply to censorship by companies or mobs or universities or whatever.
(As an extreme example, from this perspective, a country without an official government would count as 100% free speech, even if criticizing the local warlord gets you predictably tortured to death; as long as the local warlord is not considered a “government” because of some technicality.)
The indexes above seem to be concerned only with state restrictions on speech. But even if they weren’t, I would be surprised if the private situation was any better in the UK than it is here.
Very hard to take an index about “freedom of expression” seriously when the United States, a country with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is ranked lower than the United Kingdom, which prosecutes hundreds of people for political speech every year.
I agree with your broader point, but it’s actually more than 10,000 people per year.
Wow, I didn’t realize.
The index by Reporters Without Boarders is primarily about whether a newspaper or reporter can say something without consequences or interference. Things like a competitive media environment seem to be part of the index (The USAs scorecard says “media ownership is highly concentrated, and many of the companies buying American media outlets appear to prioritize profits over public interest journalism”). Its an important thing, but its not the same thing you are talking about.
The second one, from “our world in data”, ultimately comes from this (https://www.v-dem.net/documents/56/methodology.pdf). Their measure includes things like corruption, whether political power or influence is concentrated into a smaller group and effective checks and balances on the use of executive power. It sounds like they should have called it a “democratic health index” or something like that instead of a “freedom-of-expression index”.
The last one is just a survey of what people think should be allowed.
It might be the case that the US has higher protections for freedom of expression, in terms of spoken or written text. I would certainly agree that some of the restrictions in central Europe are rather onerous. However, as someone who has lived in central Europe, it seems that central Europe allows for considerably higher freedom of political expression for the average person where it counts: at the polls. We have various voting systems that favor a plurality of parties instead of first-past-the-post systems like in the UK or the US.
Therefore I would call the statement from the OP by Richard Ngo “unresponsiveness to public opinion that we see today in England, France, and Germany.” factually incorrect.
This looks like a cached thought from before Romania annulled the presidential election because the wrong guy won.
On the other hand, people from the United States are often the first to tell you that “freedom of speech” is not a general aspiration for making the world a better place, but merely a specific amendment to their constitution, which importantly only applies to censorship done directly by the government… therefore it does not apply to censorship by companies or mobs or universities or whatever.
(As an extreme example, from this perspective, a country without an official government would count as 100% free speech, even if criticizing the local warlord gets you predictably tortured to death; as long as the local warlord is not considered a “government” because of some technicality.)
The indexes above seem to be concerned only with state restrictions on speech. But even if they weren’t, I would be surprised if the private situation was any better in the UK than it is here.