And we only reached it in the 1960s! Freeing speech is always an active fight.
Sincere question for the Americans here, because these journalists are far too alien in their mindset for me: if someone was tweeting an equivalent statement about journalists, something along the lines of "anyone who identifies themselves as a journalist in a Republican space is automatically committing an act of violence, if you find one you should call the police and if that doesn't work, you should kick them in the balls", would these media still support the right to say that?
The only "absurd" part of this situation is that many of the people he's advocating real violence against literally don't have the body part he's advocating punching.
Ill framed.
> simply for being in a location
Again ill framed.
> would these media still support the right
Difficult to reply to this in light of actual cases, some even recent in terms of hours, mentioning which would be potentially inflammatory here (I don't shy away from "we need to know this", but there has to be an "intellectual curiosity" context).
> The only "absurd" part of this situation
You are both diminishing the specifics and their context: for example the quality of the written law, that Andrew Doyle¹ in a parallel article calls «hopelessly subjective notion» (and «The Communications Act further prohibits words that cause “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”»), with the burden practical and theoretical, possible source of arbitrary judgement, put on the system («Freedom of Information requests by The Times revealed that over 12,000 people are arrested each year for offensive comments posted online». Just preceeded by «We have seen journalists visited by police for wrongthink; citizens imprisoned for posting memes; prosecutions for controversial Halloween costumes; teenagers convicted and jailed for offensive jokes»).
¹ https://unherd.com/2025/09/the-shameful-arrest-of-graham-lin...
Or as long as you are not burning a US flag in USA, which will land you in prison.
And I dare you use words "Mexican Gulf", then your glorious leader will personally ban you from entering White House.
Freedom of speech, and overall first amendment, is about freedom from government restrictions. Doesn't apply to private organizations modulo some cases like civil rights.
> Or as long as you are not burning a US flag in USA, which will land you in prison.
Facts speak otherwise - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
> And I dare you use words "Mexican Gulf", then your glorious leader will personally ban you from entering White House.
Glorious leader can ban you from entering White House for whatever reason he deems fit. It is his residence and his office. Nothing to do with free speech. I can organize a protest outside White House and he can't do anything as long as it's a peaceful protest (again, right granted by 1A).
Please research your facts next time.
Facts has changed in last few days.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/pros...
AP has been barred by the government for using wrong words
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78je27x2v9o
"District Judge Trevor McFadden on Tuesday said the administration's restriction on AP journalists was "contrary to the First Amendment", which guarantees freedom of speech."
Please research your "facts" next time.
* https://www.npr.org/2025/08/27/nx-s1-5518151/flag-burning-ex...
* https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/the-supreme-court-and-fla...
As of now, a federal court has ruled 7-4 against it. Proves the GP point
# Watch: Nigel Farage warns Congress about UK speech laws
https://thespectator.com/topic/watch-nigel-farage-warns-cong...
All of this was expectable.
--
And other accusations of totalitarian climate in articles just spawned:
# Father Ted and Havel’s Greengrocer
https://thespectator.com/topic/father-ted-havel-greengrocer-...
fennec-posix•5mo ago
What he posted probably isn't a credible threat that should result in arrest, but he's been a serial pest and fearmonger for YEARS, so I do not shed a single tear.