That is correct. There is no "Prior Restraint." However, if speech causes tangible damages, then there can be legal consequences. Slander, libel, incitement of riots, etc.
You must ban several hundred million people immediately - the entirety of the EU violates your stated intent, and the nearly half a billion people who live there (yes, more than the US) all hit that criteria.
You may make fun of it - but you clearly miss the point. What you basically say is: Hate offences or hateful speach do not exist. If you look at platforms like X (or just follow current the political debate culture, may they be in the US, in UK or in the EU) it seems quite impossible to deny that such a thing exists.LOL! What exactly is a "hate offence?" I hate brussel sprouts. I also hate people who back into parking spaces.
You are from the US, aren't you? So, according to your own definition you live in a tyranny - Mr Trump is extempt from the lawful consequences of his actions as he has been elected for president...
And so I have... Using the GeoBlock feature.
Not at all what I'm saying. What should not exist, IMHO, is a government preemptively infringing on ANY speech. It is up to society and each individual how we speak. Personally, I do not ever engage in speech or behavior that would be considered prejudicial, bigoted, or racist. My own family could do one of those old commercials for the "United Colors of Benneton." Remember those??
It can't be identified, as the goal posts are constantly moving. But if I lived in Europe, then I'd have to try to abide those laws or shut my forum down. However, I don't live there. (Incidentally, I grew up overseas.)
I'm not even going to go there (politics), as it is beyond the scope of this discussion (and probably prohibited by the rules of this forum).
Well, you could basically use this approach for anything. Which would make any legislation undesirable, whatever topic it may affect. This is the cultural difference between the US and Europe (or maybe even between the US and the rest of the world): May people from the US have a huge distrust agains the (or any) government. Whereas elsewhere people consider the government the collectively elected common ground that (aside a lot of other things) protects the weaker ones within the society - the job of the government is to define rules that ensure a constructive society. So basically the government represents the society and therefor - even in your definition - has the job to a degree do define what's ok and what not in terms of speach. In opposite to what many Americans claim there is free speech in Europe but there is no right to insult. In the US people seem to have the opinion free speech must include the right to lie, to insult, to threaten others and so on. It is a completely different approach.
In my perception practice shows that this does not work: Often enough it is not the people that insult that suffer social consequences (that only happens rarely) but those who get insultet. The aggressive liars are loud and silence the others and this has dramatic negative consequences on the society. That's not a society I want to live in. We start to suffer from this phaenomenon in Europe as well - it started with Trumps "alternative facts" invention years ago. And then it became worse. In the meantime it has reached an extend where it is considered to be no longer acceptable as it poisons the society and threatens the democratic process and it's basis. Loads of people suffer because of the misbehaviour of some and these "some" become more. This is why these legislations get invented. The intentions are good (and in my eyes necessary) - the practice is difficult and the legislation far from being perfect.
Don’t worry, Ofcom don’t either.A fifteen page thread here, similar threads elsewhere and over a thousand pages of definitions and legislation on Ofcom's site and I still haven't the first clue of what I actually need to do on any of my sites to comply
ofcomlive.my.salesforce-sites.com
ofcomlive.my.salesforce-sites.com
That is the very definition of a Straw Man Argument. We're not talking about "any" topic. We're talking about the Right to Free Speech.
Yep. Definitely a cultural difference. But to be clear, we don't distrust "ANY form" of government. Another Straw Man. But we hold our Constitutionally Protected Rights as THE priority. In fact, our Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights... It is important to note that our Rights are not granted by this document. They are GUARANTEED against infringement of those Rights by the gov't.
Other people cannot offend or insult you. You can only CHOOSE to BE offended or insulted. It's a choice.
www.bbc.co.uk
Chinese companies and gov't do not have Rights in the US. And they definitely don't have a right to spy on us. Darn!TikTok faces ban in US by Sunday after Supreme Court rejects appeal
The Supreme Court has decided to uphold a law that would ban the hugely popular social media app in the US.
Well, this very arrogant attitude ("we are the US, we are better and worth more than everybody else, individually as well as as a nation and we are always right") together with a complete ignorance and lack of knowledge about (let alone respect for) other countries is possibly responsible for a lot of the issues that the US have - internally as well as with the rest of the world.
If this works for you - fine. But even with an attitude like that you can easily come into a situation where this simply does not work any more. Due to illness, due to personal emotional instability, due to poverty - there are many possiblities where your attitude could prove not stable enough within seconds. You can consider yourself lucky if you'll never have to make this experience yourself.
Guess what: Most countries do have something similar in one way or another. The difference is: In most (western) civilizations this is relevant to limit the possible range of actions that a government can do - but the basic level of trust of people towards the government is high enough that they do not have to toot this out proudly constantly - it is simply a given and considered so normal that there's no need making a faff. And - in opposite to what you say about the US - in possibly most of those countries it is also the job of the government to protect the individual from bad actions from other individuals, especially to protect the weak against misbehaviour of the strong and powerful. The US is much more "survival of the fittest" - probably that's why the idea of collectively payed public medical care is considered socialistic by many in the US while in most other nations this principle seems to be considered one of the best inventions since sliced bread (and many US citizens come to the same conclusion if they have experienced it themselves in one of those countries).
... while at the same time US companies like Facebook and many others do the same in basically all countries around the world and the future US president openly threats to invade Greenland, to inhale Canada as a US state and more things like that.Chinese companies and gov't do not have Rights in the US. And they definitely don't have a right to spy on us. Darn!
I never implied we were "better." I stated a fact about our very unique Constitution. I can't help what you infer. The US system is quite unique. And it has its own warts. It's not perfect. Hardly. This isn't based on some "arrogant" assumption. It's provable fact. There is no other Constitution or national document that mirrors the US Constitution. I have not lived my life in a bubble. I spent almost my entire childhood overseas. I've traveled extensively. My own family is quite "international" and "diverse."
Never assume, eh?
I've been through stuff I wish nobody ever had to go through. Nevertheless, I stand by my position that being insulted is a choice. And anyone who is insulted or offended by what strangers say on the interwebz.... well, there are "issues." 
You're right! Facebook has engaged in censorship, for example. Ah, but here's the thing... Private entities are not subject to Constitutional laws such as Free Speech. Any private entity can censor anyone in their "house." The Constitution applies ONLY to the gov't. In my own business, I do not have to abide the Constitution. I can stipulate what my employees can say while on business property. No Free Speech Rights in the private sector. Again, the Constitution does not apply.while at the same time US companies like Facebook and many others do the same in basically all countries around the world and the future US president openly threats to invade Greenland, to inhale Canada as a US state and more things like that.