Who's freedom? Your freedom? my freedom? Freedom of what? Freedom without boundaries is just Anarchy. but who determines those boundaries - who determines what kinds of freedom constitutes "freedom"

The US definition in its constitution defines The five freedoms it protects: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

So to break those down

You can say what you like about the government, but likewise you can't silence anyone else on their opinion. This means they can state their opinion that you should get fucked when you say an opinion they disagree with - they can't actually make you get fucked though.
You can practice any recognised religion freely without persecution. (Note: persecution does not stop people from criticising religion, as that would violate the freedom of speech, it stops government persecution from practicing or not practicing religions)
It allows the press to report freely - the government can't dictate what the press can and cannot say, particularly when it comes to political and governmental matters
Assembly - the right to gather and peacefully protest. - the moment it becomes even the slightest bit violent is when they're allowed to step in.
The right for your opinion to be heard in government. You can post your opinions to government officials and have them be heard - likewise, other people can do the same. It doesn't mean the official has to act on it, just that they have to take it into account.

As to whether or not these freedoms are being honoured is up for debate. You'll have to read the lawbooks for the concrete legal definitions and decide for yourself if

the definition is wrong
the current situation fits the definition
how you would redefine it.

As an Aussie I have no say in how your country is run - and my own country has its own issues, but I do impore you to understand the position on the global stage your country has and why it affects us all.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What makes you think people always want freedom? People support the Taliban and other totalitarian states. Many would gladly support authoritarianism so long as it is their dictator in charge.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 1 year ago

Again.. what kind of freedom do they want or not want?

And what's the Taliban got to do with any of this? How do we know they want the Taliban ruling? -

The Taliban are known to be

Incredibly brutal - if you gather and protest against them they'll massacre you without a second thought. They rule through terror, fear and lies and their hardline fascistic Muslim beliefs. (Yes these are essentially the equivalent to Christian neo Nazis today) you think Tiananmen square was bad? Nah man, theyll line the protestors up and behead them one by one to make an example.
Indoctrinating - they have, in my opinion a similar program to the Hitler youth. - take the boys and make them into brainwashed soldiers who don't or can't question the Taliban. then Take the young women and teach them it's their lot and benifit in life to have children for the cause - turning them into nothing but glorified baby makers.
They tend to be abusive towards women, grinding them into the dirt - these ladies essentially have one "right" - the "right" to have children - often whether they like it or not.

So I don't think we can use wether people want the Taliban there - they could be saying it because they're either brainwashed or fearing for their lives. Sure there are assholes who genuinely love the Taliban. But those people are usually high in the ranks, and have lots of power.

[–] Leer10@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I think the point here is to prevent tyranny of the majority. For example, protecting small religious or ethnic groups from discrimination or persecution from a majority.

Likewise, the ACLU (American, i know) protects free speech even for very anti-patriotic messages, even if those messages are unsavory to the majority.

[–] AUniqueGeek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait how so?

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I remember the day we started bombing Iraq. Their vice-president (actual it was their president, but he was second in command to Saddam as the PM) was a Christian calling on the pope to help stop the war. After the war, things go so bad that we had to intervene a second time to stop the killing of Christians. Freedom of religion definitely took a hit, since the public at large didn't support it. Was it worth it in that particular case to get rid of a dictator? Maybe, maybe not. He most likely would have fallen during the Arab spring - if it still occurred without our Iraq intervention.

My main point is the American public loves 'freedom', but you shouldn't t expect it to follow democracy. Specially when popular leaders get elected claiming everything wrong with "country name" is because of "insert basic human right".

[–] Addica@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well in any case, you shouldnt support Authoritarians, or those who rule through imposing long term centeralized control. They are the antithesis to freedom. Anyone can easily label themselves as supporting 'freedom'.

The true strength of democratic systems anyways is that it provides a buffer between people and out of control government entities. This government might have your approval but will the same people be leading in 40 years?? 60 years?? Will they have the same values??

They will have the same powers regardless of whether you agree with them or not.