Animats
6 hours ago
Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings. The Federalist papers were signed "Publius". What Franklin did was in no way unusual for that group.
In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, and UK rights are weaker still. China has no right to anonymous speech at all.
embedding-shape
5 hours ago
> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker,
It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the right to privacy (2024 Podchasov v. Russia), while the US is seemingly going the other way of adding more backdoors and weakening E2E encryption.
So yes, on paper it seems like the US likes anonymous speech more than the EU, but in practice, it seems like the US is doing less to actually protect anonymous speech than the EU.
dannyobrien
5 hours ago
Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? I'll give you the almost-certain weakening of proposed crypto standards, and Clinton-era export controls, but I don't think I've seen any movement in that direction recently. The most successful attempts statutorily seem to be in the UK and the US.
Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, so I'm not sure it's a good example to give in defending against such proposals. For instance, Russia declined to respect that decision, and I don't think it's had much effect on the UK's backdoor regime.
shakna
4 hours ago
Don't worry. They're still weakening crypto standards today, hand in hand with the UK. [0]
embedding-shape
4 hours ago
> Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption?
Do you really need examples of this? There are countless of them, some programs you cannot have missed are PRISM, STATEROOM and BULLRUN but there are more of them too.
Semaphor
34 minutes ago
I must say I find it interesting you say "cannot have missed" as I never heard of stateroom or bullrun before
RA_Fisher
an hour ago
Europeans use American iPhones and Android bc they wouldn’t add a backdoor.
Didn’t the UK want a backdoor added?
hdgvhicv
5 hours ago
US free speech is qualified too - just in different ways.
And even when free speech is protected, it doesn’t stop you receiving the consequences log being arrested or losing your job and home.
embedding-shape
4 hours ago
I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy.
But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as despicable or whatever. What is "free speech" for you actually?
hdgvhicv
2 hours ago
People get arrested and fined for speech quite a lot in the US. I guess that’s just a consequence
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/23/supre...
https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-03-17/arrest-of-pro-pale...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/...
rcxdude
2 hours ago
In the UK you do have certain 'moral rights' with respect to a piece of writing you've made, and one of them is essentially a right to anonymity/pseudonymity for that work. Somewhat notably JK Rowling won a case about it when the books she released under a pen name were revealed to be hers.
kodoman
5 hours ago
From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because when you do you quickly realize how pathetic are 'glorious revolution' is how weak the the brave people petitioning a foreign king to come over to overthrow a king they did not like because he was a catholic and wanted more tolerance for Catholics.
Not the biggest fan of where America is at the moment but American founding fathers are some of the most impressive people and the American revolution is incredible, where as are revolution is one of the saddest affairs in human history and it's continuation is a disaster in my opinion.