My article already addressed all your concerns. You are completely ignoring the separation of power, checks and balances. You ignore that we are able to put government to court, while technically our courts are part of our system of government.
If you don't think we can build a system that can determine what speech is okay, then how on Earth can we have a system which determines who is guilty of any crime? You have failed to address that point.
You make claims that I want specific parties to decide speech. That is absurd and shows that you either didn't read the article or didn't understand any of the central points. I never called for the left to decide what is acceptable speech or not, or for whatever administration is currently in power to decide what peopel can say.
I made it very clear in my article that I was talking about building up institutions. In fact I would rely on courts, just like we do when deciding guilt. Is Joe Biden deciding who is guilty of crime in America today? Is it free for the left to committ any crime they want because the "own" the government? Your assumptions are rather absurd. You assume that in matters of speech courts will suddenly take instruction from the sitting government while in all other matters they will somehow manage to be impartial?
Your assumptions make no sense, and I elaborated on this extensively in the article. Yet you entirely ignore these points in your response. Your claims that the left "owns" US media and corporations are also just absurd. I remember how Bernie Sanders got bulldozed in New York times and pretty much all mainstream US media. I have followed US media over many decades and seen how being anything but a capitalism fanboy is pretty much impossible.
Your remarks about Nordic culture and intellectual life just shows you utter ignorance. What exactly do you know about Nordic culture an intellectual life? Do you know any Nordic language? Do you read our literature, our newspapers and follow our debates. If not then how on Earth can you draw an conclusions? Nordic politics has significantly more diversity than the US. The US has two parties, both pro-capitalism parties. In most Nordic countries you have at least 10 different parties with diverse ideological foundation, anything from a socialist, capitalist, liberal to an agrarian perspective. You confuse the ability of Nordic people too cooperate with lack of diversity. As if diversity is to be uncompromising and conflict oriented.
And these policies around speech applies to many European countries. Germany is probably the most relevant as they have actual experience with authoritarianims and how to deal with it. Something utterly lacking in the US. Germany has demonstrated a remarkable ability to build a rock solid democratic fondation on a society with very deep authoritarian roots. That isn't a lesson to simply ignore and go: "We know better."
