And conversely the US is one of the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights or can be interpreted as defamation/slander. The premise that US has anything resembling freedom of speech is completely untrue.
> the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights
That's absolutely true.
> or can be interpreted as defamation/slander
That's absolutely false. The United States tends to be much harder to press a defamation/slander case than many other territories. Perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom? They have much looser libel laws than the United States.
Libel/slander are famously hard to prove in the US. Sure you're not thinking of the UK?
Are peer nations substantially more liberal on copyright infringement than the US? I haven't really heard of that. Really, it seemed like other countries like Japan and Germany were stricter.
Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? (Peoples who’s names he never even mentioned, at that..)
If calling public figures actors is all it takes for them to successfully sue for millions, the bar seems incredibly low.
> Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”?
No.
First, the Sandy Hook parents were not public figures.
Second, Jones and Infowars did significantly more than just make claims about people being crisis actors (though, that in itself absolutely can be defamatory in that it was a false statement of fact). There were also claims that some parent's fabricated their daughter's identify and then faked her death in order to steal money from hard-working Americans.
Third, this was not a matter of Jones simply making an assertion once. He repeated these claims for years, which led to a significant and ongoing harassment of the family.
Fourth, Jones refused to participate in the lawsuit itself, deliberately and repeatedly not complying with repeated discovery orders. This led to a default judgement against him.
Fifth, an entire trial was held on how much damage Jones' defamatory statements and unfair trade practices caused. A jury of his peers determined that Jones' defamatory actions caused $965 Million dollars in damages.
So, I think your characterization of it as "an entertainer simply repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show" is an absolutely incomplete summary of what happened, and why he was found to be liable for his actions.
Which jurisdiction(s) do you think would have afforded more protections to Jones' defamatory conduct?
The USA has the concept of both fair use and public domain, which is lacking in many other countries copyright laws. The idea that the USA is uniquely IP owner friendly is commonplace in the tech community but wrong.
"Very permissive" seems an odd way to put it. It's a human right. The way this is stated is just as if giving women the right to do everything men can do was "very permissive."
We're not just talking about basic political speech freedoms, there's plenty of gray area about.
For example, the US and UK both have laws on libel/slander (I think most countries do), but the US is much more permissive than the UK, in the sense that it's a lot harder to prove that someone committed libel/slander.
Is it a "human right" to maliciously and publicly lie about whether some other person, say, killed a child for fun? You could certainly argue "people should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want", but I think most people would agree that some restrictions on that kind of speech is reasonable, because it ends up harming others.
Before we can call free speech a human right we have to have a working definition of free speech, which is not actually easy
It’s definitely not “anyone can say anything any time”, even this is not allowed in the USA. Libel, defamation, lying under oath, these things are not covered under free speech, nor should they be.
In my opinion, there’s no such thing as freedom of speech. It’s like freedom in general. Freedom from choice is also one.
The EU doesn't have worldwide jurisdiction over prohibited speech. Why should an American company have to take down anything that's legal here, even if it wouldn't be there?
will still have to oblige. Definitely no "hate speech, incitement to terrorism and child sexual abuse."
For his part, Musk has said he wouldn’t allow illegal content on the platform.