u/r0ertel

As some of the other posters argued, this is a slippery slope to censorship by those in power, which does not allow for dissenting opinions to propogate.

Given that free speech doesn't mean that anybody needs to listen, I feel that the problem (and solution) lies in the conduit for the free speech. I don't understand the complexities of the laws but have wondered if adjusting the laws to hold entities accountable for their actions would have a positive effect. For example, an idiot shouting from the town square has a limited audience, but if a newspaper picks up the message and promotes it, aren't they partially responsible for that message?

It gets tricky with opinion pieces, but we already have an established mechansm with newspapers' opinion pages. One potential problem is that the current media companies enjoy no accountability, no content creation costs and profits from advertisers.

On that topic, I'd even go so far as to argue that advertisers share in the accountability of providing funds to organizations that support harmful messages.

There's a lot more to this but would be interesting to see a country who has done it and if it had a net positive effect.

They touch on it in the article. What if the goal is to trade globally in cryptocurrency?

While this has been historically true, it's not working this time.

But the dollar not only failed to strengthen this time, it fell, puzzling economists and hurting consumers. The dollar lost more than 5% against the euro and pound, and 6% against the yen since early April.

As with most things happening under this US administration, he pushes things to the breaking point to see how it reacts. He's stress testing the global economy. From there, I would guess that he'd back off just before the breaking point and move on to something else.

I've posted this elsewhere (skip to paragraph 21 for the meaty parts). The short version is that the US demanded that trade partners implement protections for US companies in exchange for trade deals. Those trade deals are no longer present, so why don't the governments reverse the protections since the US isn't holding up their end of the bargain anymore?

For comments, I read that the upvote indicates that you feel that the comment is adding to the conversation and a downvote indicates that it detracts. I don't know how this applies to the articles.

Americans get really upset when people go to the US and do things like they do in their home country, but also expect to be able to act like Americans in other countries. It's a little arrogant or ignorant. Some people who who were even invited to study in the US have been deported for doing things that Americans do themselves, like protesting.

Whittle this story down to its core and you have, "guest in country breaks law and gets punished". Is that really surprising? How about, "guest in country exercises rights of citizens and gets punished?"