moving toward the end of the year some sadness creeps into my mind. How can a population with so much personal freedom in the USA adopt a life of resignation soaked with acceptance of lies that reminds me of my experience in eastern Europe in my younger years.
Because Norway and Denmark aren't socialist - they're social democracies. DSA tries to play a bit of slight of hand there when they say all they want is to be like Norway and Denmark.
But setting that aside, the reason is these kitchen-sink indices often heavily weight economic freedom vs. civil liberties like speech (in speech - with the 1st Amendment - the US is the undisputed leader). This is the same argument many use to suggest the US should pull out of NATO: e.g. the US effectively exists as Europe's military which created a massive drain on our resources and a curtailment of our economic freedom.
The Heritage Foundation lays out the economic freedom issue in the first paragraph of their report: "It is long past time to put the American people first. For too long, the policy agenda in Washington has been defined by well-connected special interests that have severely undercut economic freedom for ordinary hardworking Americans. But on November 5, 2024, the American people spoke up and unambiguously rejected the failed liberal status quo. The reelection of Donald Trump has placed our country at the dawn of a new era. Today, by that dawn’s early light, we can already see the prosperous, cheerful, energetic future it portends."
Not sure underscoring this perspective was the goal of the present work......
This presentation of US/NATO military relations drives me crazy.
Yes, there has been considerable freeloading. No question. My country, Canada, is one of the worst offenders.
But the idea that, therefore, on military matters the US has been horribly taken advantage of, with Europeans and Canadians enjoying ill-gotten wealth as a result, is a ridiculous cartoon.
As the military giant of NATO, the US led in all things. Think all NATO countries should jointly pay for the development a next-gen fighter? That the development should be led by the US? That it should be built in the US? That all the technological and engineering and manufacturing advancement that accrues should accrue to the US? That the allies should spend huge amounts of money buying it from American factories? As the top dog, the US got NATO to agree to that. And so much more! Yes, allies' military budgets were smaller than they should be, but they were still big money -- and a large portion of that money was spent as the US directed on US equipment built in America.
And don't even get me started on how much political heft the US got from being top military dog! When the US said in international forums to its friends and allies, "say, we need you to do us a favour" it almost never heard "no."
And I have never heard a single MAGA person acknowledge any of this. In some cases, it may be dishonesty. But in most? I don't think Americans have any clue how much power and money they accrued this way. Or how much they are going to lose now.
Don’t think Trump’s win was “unambiguous”. He won popular vote by 1.5 % over Harris. The House of Representatives is very, very close. Dawn of a new era? Yes, if advancing interests of Russia and China are the goal, well done.
Remember when you debated Allan Gregg on whether the future looked brighter for Canada or the US?
You took the side of the US, and I'd think you were proven right. But the important point is that you debated the question. You were willing to have your side challenged.
How about on this issue? Michael Shellenberger used to be far left. Now ...
How lazy? I'm surprised. You've thrown in the towel on engagement over the last decade. You took on Gregg in a rather hostile environment when most would have wanted you, Gregg, and every other 'intellectual' to favor Canada. What has become of you that "Schellenberger is ridiculous. Intellectually dishonest." strikes you as even amounting to a reply? Why even bother?
I would only point out that the list of “facts” merely represents a compilation of “opinions” (of the analysts and advisors and whoever else was involved in voting on the various metrics used). (I only looked up the Freedom House methodology so I can’t speak to the other charts, but presumably they also only reflect the opinions of whoever was in the room, rather than some objective measure).
Meanwhile, the rise in vote-share of right-leaning parties in multiple EU states would seem to suggest that the progressive status quo in those nations is enjoying diminishing support from their own citizens…which doesn’t map directly onto “freedom”, but does better reflect the perception of the citizenry of those member states of the overall direction of their governments. ‘Still free but with their heads up their butts’ seems to describe UK 2025.
Well, yes. Any index that attempts to quantify a concept as amorphous as freedom will necessarily involve lots of value choices in the construction of the methodology and subjective judgements about the weighting of factors. Literally any index.
But you are slipping quietly past the obvious: First, a couple of these indexes come from organizations which are not remotely sympathetic to Europe, or indeed are actively hostile. That Europe still ranks well is noteworthy, surely. Second -- and more basically -- they are presented in response to a particular claim about the state of freedom in Europe. The gap between the claim and what they show is GIGANTIC. There's no finesse required here. The claim is bullshit. Which is the point of the article.
As to the actual state of Europe, sure, I agree, it's got huge problems. If you find it congenial to dwell on those, feel free. But that's simply not relevant to this article.
As I said, I only looked into the freedom house methodology. For before you accept the result of any study or experiment, you have to evaluate their methods to know if it gives any hope of evaluating what they’ve wanted to evaluate.
Freedom house did not list all 130+ analysts involved. Of the ones they did list, it appeared roughly half (on cursory inspection) were of European affiliation. And I could not find who voted in what way. It makes it difficult/impossible to assess for inherent bias among the analysts.
You seem to treat the “subjective judgment” of the indices as the unvarnished truth, against which to compare the claims of the Trump admin re: Europe. That’s fine….I happen to agree with you but this all represents not much more than a difference of “subjective” opinion.
Btw, there are plenty of “objective” indices…just not in this type of arena.
As I also noted, it’s not just me who is “dwelling” on Europe’s problems…it seems like their citizens are increasingly doing so as well. And that’s a far bigger story than any single example of Trump admin buffoonery (which occurs on any day ending in -Y).
I'm sorry, this is wrong. Free speech is a component, but only one of many. And your response is not a rebuttal -- it is a moving of the goal posts. I'll have a lengthier response there.
My response was to someone who said: "Wow, thanks for so many freedom of speech charts." - My point was/is that those were not freedom of speech charts (they were catch all, kitchen-sink metrics which have little to do with freedom of speech).
As for your suggestion that I'm "moving the goal posts" I address that in my lengthier response there.
I see that Canada and Sweden score high on the personal freedom metrics. I can only speak about Sweden (and Canada seems to be emulating Sweden in recent years), where we have government control of thoughts, opinions, manners etc. We have lots of elephants in the room that nobody pretends to see. I am curious to see how freedom house can give Sweden such high score when all this oppression, control, censorship etc goes on. I have sent a question to them and will be interested to see if and how they respond.
To be clear, if freedom house et al continues to give Sweden high ranking they are contributing to the problems we have, since politicians and hallelujah intellectuals will use their measurements as an excuse for not fixing the problems.
As for the media, my impression is strongly influenced by Chomsky/Herrmanns "Manufacturing consent" and similar analysis. The same analysis applies to media in all western countries, but the tendencies are stronger in the US, where power is concentrated. The obstacles to good reporting and journalism are rarely formal, in the sense that it isn't the law that prevents media from exposing corruption. It is the fact that the media is part of the power systems. Ownership, culture, selection bias (who becomes a public intellectual/journalist etc) and so on. Lots of things like that.
In Sweden, the problem is not so much the laws regarding media (although something like the Snowden revelations would never have been published in Swedish press due to national security laws). The problem is mostly the conformist culture and cowardice.
Most swedes are afraid of conflicts. They avoid it at all costs. The reason, I believe, is cowardice. And cowards want to feel safe. They worship the people or institutions that display power and dominance. In the US it is mostly the military. In Sweden it is the police agencies. It is the same psychology as when weak women seeks out strong, muscular men to protect them from harm. Institutions that display power, dominance, force, subjugation etc gain support when the population consists of a high degree of cowards. Police state measures isn’t met with the repulsion that would be the natural instinct if we mostly cared about living in a free, liberal democracy.
Hey Dan, great article. One misspelling, I think. In Freedom House paragraph you write: “Their methodology has evolved with time but not it’s widely seen as one of the best.” Do you mean “now it’s widely seen”? Keep up great work.
You're right that many indices show European countries and Canada outperforming the US on overall freedom metrics. Freedom House's 2025 report does note Canada scoring higher than the US on political rights and civil liberties. That said, the picture varies by index. The Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World 2025 report (using 2023 data) ranks Canada 11th globally, behind the US at 5th and several European nations like Switzerland (4th) and Denmark (9th). These differences often come down to how each measure weighs economic policies versus personal liberties. Interesting spread.
"There’s an old lawyer’s maxim that when the facts are with you, pound the facts. Then shut up."
Indeed - let's work from that perspective.
It's true that these heavily compounded, "kitchen sink scores" from sources like Freedom House, and the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index (HFI), along with the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) often place European nations ahead of the US. However, this overlooks critical nuances: these indexes rely on lagged data (HFI is from 2023 for example), they often heavily weight economic factors over civil liberties like speech, and they fail to capture the escalating censorship trends in Europe and Canada during 2024–2025. Far from "thoughtless enforcement" of minor issues, as you suggest, Europe's approach to online speech—through arrests, compelled platform censorship, and hate speech exceptions—represents a systemic slide toward illiberalism that the US's First Amendment largely avoids.
Below, I'll break this down with data, highlighting why the US remains freer in fundamental rights despite lower overall rankings.
1. Indexes Lag Behind Real-Time Declines in Speech Freedoms
Your charts show Europe dominating top spots, but the 2025 editions of these indexes use 2023 data cutoffs, missing post-pandemic escalations in repression. For instance, Freedom House's 2025 report notes a 19th consecutive year of global freedom decline, with Europe facing "uphill battles" from political pressures and online controls—yet aggregate scores remain high due to strong rule-of-law baselines. RSF's 2025 World Press Freedom Index describes an "all-time low" globally, with economic fragility and polarization dragging down even high-rankers like Germany (11th) and the UK (20th), while the US sits at 57th due to media consolidation and journalist threats (primarily from non-governmental sources, such as the public, protesters, political extremists, or societal pressures, rather than direct state-sponsored violence or arrests). Critiques argue these metrics undervalue compelled censorship under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), which over 100 advocates in 2025 called a "global speech police" mechanism, forcing platforms to remove content (including cross-border spillover incentives) or face fines—functionally equivalent to authoritarian blocking.
Consider Cato's 2025 HFI: Europe fills most top slots (e.g., Switzerland at 9.15, Denmark at 9.03), but its "Expression and Information" sub-scores (0–10 scale) reveal vulnerabilities not emphasized in your overview. The US's 8.5 reflects polarization (not legal restrictions - which are largely nonexistent), while Europe's high marks (e.g., UK 9.2, Germany 9.1) predate 2024–2025 arrests for online speech, such as the UK's >12,000 cases in 2023 alone (up 121% since 2017) and Germany's nationwide raids. In Canada (HFI 8.85 overall, 9.0 expression), the failed Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act, 2024) would have compelled platforms to censor "harmful" content (including hate-fomenting material) under a duty-of-care regime, chilling speech via proxy—outcomes critics likened to authoritarianism—while the ongoing Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act, 2025) advances related Criminal Code changes without direct platform mandates.
These trends suggest future indexes will reflect sharper drops, undermining your snapshot.
2. Speech Protections: The US's Relative Absolutism vs. Europe's Exceptions
You downplay European speech curbs as minor, but the US's First Amendment lacks a hate speech exception, protecting even offensive views unless inciting imminent harm (per Brandenburg v. Ohio). Europe and Canada, conversely, criminalize "hate speech" broadly, enabling arrests for tweets—over 30 in the UK during 2024 riots alone, and dozens in Germany for "insults" or memes. Other exceptions compound this. Europe's broader carve-outs, often justified by ECHR Article 10(2), risk chilling dissent—unlike the US's robust jurisprudence.
And for European readers who may not realize how damaging these infantilizing speech codes are to free expression, I'd encourge them to review this article:
3. Media Ecosystems: Diversity and Ownership Vulnerabilities
Press freedom metrics "split hairs" on subtle pressures, but I'd argue the ecosystem diversity offers a clearer lens. The US boasts ~7,000+ independent news outlets and ~1,500 broadcasters, dwarfing Europe's—yet concentration is a drag in RSF scores. Europe scores high on pluralism via public broadcasters, but this model invites hidden influence: the BBC's 2025 survey revealed only 43% view it as independent, amid resignations over perceived pressures. Billionaire-owned US media, while potentially biased, often litigates against regulations (e.g., 1st Amendment challenges - all the way to SCOTUS), a resistance public entities like RAI in Italy (politically appointed) rarely match.
4. Economic Weighting and Broader Freedoms
Your metrics heavily favor economic liberty (Heritage's 12 indicators are 75% economic), explaining the US's lower rank (~60–69 score) amid "overregulation." Yet Heritage's 2025 preface ties this to Trump's reelection as a rejection of "liberal status quo," a conservative slant that might alienate your readers! (e.g. be careful what you wish for: these "economic freedom" arguments are being used by proponents of NATO dissolution....).
Beyond speech, the US Bill of Rights protects unique elements like gun rights (2nd Amendment) and grand juries (5th), absent or limited elsewhere.
In sum, while Europe's indexes shine, they mask a "free speech recession" that the US's constitutional bulwarks better resist. Trump's rhetoric may overstate but ignoring these trends risks underestimating real divergences in liberty.
Lance, thanks for the long reply, but I have to be blunt: This is all an exercise in moving the goalpost.
The MAGA attack on Europe is not exclusively about free speech. It is about "freedom" writ large. One of the big claims is that the EU is hostile to democratic liberties. See JD Vance's speech earlier this year. I wrote my piece in reply to that. You are arguing about something else.
But now a couple of points about yours.
First, you end with "all is clearly not well in Europe/Canada." Do you see anyone arguing "all is well in Europe/Canada"? I don't. And I haven't. In fact, I went on at length about the European approach to hate speech, which I think is fundamentally misguided. So who exactly are you arguing with?
Second, you write I "downplay European speech curbs as minor." I called them out at length and denounced them as useless and counterproductive. Short of pulling my hair out while swearing, what more would I have to do to avoid "downplaying" in your mind?
Third, your observations about European hate speech laws simply ignore the possibility that there are countervailing concerns and take it as given that the position you prefer is superior. I don't like hate speech laws but I do recognize that there are legitimate concerns behind them and these exercises in drawing lines for speech are always complex and difficult. And while I tend to favour something closer to the US approach, I don't buy the lazy belief that it is "absolutist" and therefore best: For one thing, the US approach has always been to draw lines without appearing to draw lines, by simply taking speech the courts don't want to protect and saying "it's not speech so it's not protected." The Canadian approach, eg, at least as the virtue of honesty -- by saying, "yes this is speech and it is therefore protected but we must draw a line somewhere by deciding where reasonable limits lie." (Also: treating current 1A law as the minimum bar for "freedom" would mean that the US has been a "tyranny" for most of its history. Does that make sense to you? https://dgardner.substack.com/p/what-the-history-of-free-speech-tells )
And you're missing the rather obvious point of using freedom indexes by right-wing organizations: It tilts the playing field heavily in favour of MAGA's claim. Yet even with that bias, the results don't come within a country mile of supporting that claim.
As for lagging data, yes, of course that's true and I'm sure Heritage will be delighted to call deregulation a great success in 2025 and jump the US up a bunch of spots ... which won't change my point in the slightest. But you're missing that a few other things happened in 2025 -- like the sidelining of Congress in favour of governance by executive fiat or a head of state threatened to execute a legislator for stating a fact he didn't want stated. It'll be fascinating to see what those changes do to the rankings.
Dan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's clear we're both digging into these issues seriously, and I appreciate the engagement. We agree that no one, including you, is claiming "all is well" in Europe or Canada. We share common ground on hate speech laws being misguided, useless, and counterproductive, as you put it in your original piece. My rebuttal isn't trying to invent a straw man but to test whether the indexes you cite fully refute the core of the MAGA critique, especially since - as you say - JD Vance's Munich speech was the impetus for your article. By linking that speech to the Trump administration's portrayal (which you called a "fraud. A crock. Nonsense"), it seems fair to examine how Vance's points align with the problems you already acknowledge, potentially weakening your blanket dismissal.
On the Vance speech: It does touch on broader democratic liberties like election integrity and migration policies, but a close reading shows it's overwhelmingly focused on speech and speech-adjacent concerns—censorship, arrests for expression, suppression of dissent, and the use of laws to silence political opponents. Vance explicitly warns that Europe's "principal danger" is internal, pointing to examples like UK arrests for silent prayer near abortion clinics, Sweden's convictions for Quran-burning, Romania's annulled election over alleged disinformation, and EU regulations clamping down on "misinformation" or "hate" in debates about immigration and national identity. He ties migration policies to speech by arguing that elites use hate speech and incitement laws to silence anti-immigration voices, and on elections and "fear of voters," he claims authorities annul results or bar candidates to sideline populists, effectively expressing distrust in voter choices. This isn't a separate debate—it's directly engaging the speech-driven issues you targeted.
If we agree these problems are real, then dismissing the portrayal as outright nonsense feels like it undercuts your own condemnations, especially given recent trends where speech laws increasingly interfere with politics. For example, far-right candidates have faced barriers tied to their rhetoric: In Romania, pro-Russian candidate Calin Georgescu was barred from the March 2025 presidential re-run partly because of his public statements criticizing NATO and Ukraine support, which were deemed threats to democracy. In France, there were heated debates about banning National Rally figures for "hate speech" related to migration. Germany's AfD has seen funding restrictions and ongoing investigations for "incitement" in anti-immigration statements, while Spain's Vox and Portugal's Chega have faced fines and content bans for similar rhetoric on migration. Across the EU, the Digital Services Act and political advertising rules (effective October 2025) have led to disproportionate content removals targeting populist messaging, with a reported 15% rise in hate speech probes against politicians.
This supports the idea that speech laws can enable selective interference—often justified as protecting democracy but risking the suppression of voter-preferred views. The pattern fits Vance's warning that elites are putting a thumb on the scale against certain parties and candidates.
On the US "absolutist" approach and history: I fully agree—the First Amendment hasn't always been robust. Much of US history involved significant restrictions (Sedition Acts, Comstock laws, Red Scares, obscenity bans). Protections truly strengthened in the early 20th century, starting with Justice Brandeis's influential dissents (like Whitney v. California in 1927, advocating for "more speech" to counter bad ideas). But here's the key difference today: US protections are trending stronger through recent jurisprudence, while Europe and Canada's are weakening.
Recent Supreme Court cases illustrate this: Murthy v. Missouri (2024) limited government coercion of platforms to censor content; NetChoice v. Paxton/Moody (2024) affirmed platforms' editorial rights as protected speech; and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023, reaffirmed in ongoing cases) barred compelled speech. These decisions provide real recourse—Trump's threats (like those against critics) often fail constitutional muster in courts. In contrast, Europe sees routine arrests for online speech (e.g., thousands in the UK for social media posts), and parties/candidates face investigations or barriers tied to their rhetoric.
You're right that 2025 US developments (executive actions, threats) could hurt future rankings, and indexes like Heritage might boost for deregulation while Freedom House flags institutional strain. Yet US courts and federalism offer safeguards that Europe's more embedded laws (hate speech crimes, DSA enforcement) lack.
I don't see this as moving the goalposts—it's testing whether aggregate, economically weighted indexes (even with a rightward tilt) fully address Vance's speech-focused warnings. If we agree on the underlying problems, perhaps the portrayal isn't "nonsense" but a call to scrutinize trends before they worsen. Curious for your thoughts—maybe the real discussion is about how much weight speech deserves in these rankings?
The US elects it's senators and each state regardless of size has two. In Canada, senators are selected by the PMO.
The PMO also selects judges and heads of the RCMP, etc. In the US the senate votes on them.
The majority of media in Canada is fully government paid for, CBC, or significantly so, so reporting is very biased to supporting anything the government does.
I'm sure you could go on. But consider that you are only citing facts (or to be more precise, your interpretation of the facts, which are debatable) which support your conclusion, while ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. For example, yes, Canada and the United States both have a second legislative chamber called a "Senate." But that's where the similarities end. The Canadian Senate has a small fraction of the power of the US Senate, so the fact that Senators aren't elected simply isn't that important.
In any event, what you are objecting to is a conclusion reached not by me but by Freedom House. May I suggest you read that organization's report (it's linked) to see how it drew its conclusions? If you think it's flawed some way, do let me know.
Dan, you sited them so I interpreted your support.
The US constutions free speech and right to self defense plus property rights puts it far above Canada. And look at BCs' adoption of UNDRIP; taking on foreign policies is asinine. A free country elects leaders to develop its own policies
Thank you for your writings though, I appreciate them.
There is only a limited supply of freedom indexes. Freedom House's is one of the most widely respected. So of course I cited it. And others. Because whatever their strengths and weaknesses, they're the best measures we have.
And... aren't you even a little curious to find out HOW Freedom House draws its conclusions?
I’d like to take you up on the point of free speech: Earlier today I was having a discussion who took the view that free speech rules were superior in the USA. After a bit of to and fro, they finally commented on the case of Rumeysa Ozturk.
I responded, that if your free speech rules apply to only some people, then they are not actually rights, they’re privileges.
I’d rather live in a country, where my rights are guaranteed by the ECHR. It’s a superior foundation than the US constitution.
“Superior” is a preference, not a fact—and “guaranteed by the ECHR” is overstated. The ECHR is an international treaty (not a constitution), many rights are *qualified* (e.g., Article 10(2) expressly permits restrictions on speech if deemed “necessary in a democratic society”), and states can even derogate in emergencies (Article 15). You also generally only reach Strasbourg *after exhausting domestic remedies* (Article 35), so it isn’t an immediate, self-executing personal guarantee.
If we’re talking *free speech specifically*, the U.S. is often more protective: the First Amendment’s “make no law… abridging” framework plus the *Brandenburg* “imminent lawless action” standard (coupled with centuries of jurisprudence) leaves far less room for “hate speech/insult” style restrictions than Article 10(2). And beyond speech, the U.S. Bill of Rights contains several unusually explicit guarantees that the ECHR does not match in the same categorical way—like an enumerated right to keep and bear arms, grand-jury indictment protection, and detailed trial rights (jury, confrontation, compulsory process, counsel). The ECHR has important fair-trial protections, but they’re framed more generally and remain subject to the Convention’s limitation structure—so calling the ECHR *categorically* superior isn’t a factual claim.
Among the other points you list, is the requirement for grand juries and jury trials. You seem to imply that a justice system cannot be just without them.
And yet, there are countries in Europe, where the justice system is arranged very differently, eg there are some courts where a judge is sitting with some lay people, but no juries as such. There are countries, where judges play a far more active (investigative magistrates) roles. And yet across Europe our justice systems work.
And coming back to Rumeysa Ozturk, she ended up in jail for writing that article, for her none of the protections (jury trial, grand juries) worked.
If human rights are only valid for some humans…. we have seen that particular movie before. We in Europe. We, who on the basis of those experiences decided to write the ECHR.
I appreciate that you responded. And maybe you’ll respond again?
As I noted below, that's a mischaracterization of the Ozturk case: she had her visa revoked and she was therefore being held in immigration detention. The EU can authorize long immigration detention too: under the EU “Return Directive,” pre-removal detention can run up to 6 months, and in some cases be extended to 18 months total. Even where national caps are shorter, they’re still substantial—e.g., France up to 90 days and Spain up to 60 days.
Further, she had representation and hearings all along and the case was ultimately thrown out on 1st Amendment grounds (as it should have been). That's an example of the system working (meanwhile, in the EU, you can be arrested/detained for holding the "wrong" opinion...or posting mean tweets).
As regards your other points listed in the US constitution, the way you mention the right to bear arms indicates that you think this is something positive.
Can I tell you, that this is a uniquely American perspective and that many in the rest of the world think that you are utterly bonkers? Especially given the recent change in attitude, that this is a personal right, which cannot be restricted (Heller, Bruen).
But then I live in a country, where our most recent mass/school shooting was in 1996. We banned private guns a fortnight later.
Another point about my country, something which might surprise you - our police officers carry no guns, they are unarmed.
"Bonkers" or no, removing the right to bear arms is by definition authoritarian.
Personally, I simply can't imagine believing that consenting, law abiding adults should be unable to own a firearm. Totally unfathomable. You do you...but don't for a moment delude yourself.
I appreciate your response. However, as we’re talking free speech in particular, any claims that the US’ rules are better fall apart with the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, who ended up in jail (without a trial or court case!) for writing an article.
One of the rights listed in the ECHR is the right to due process, it is a very important right, something which the US does not have. And it shows. Eg the case of this particular young lady. Yes, there are some protections via some of the amendments, but clearly they are insufficient.
The Rumeysa Öztürk case was an immigration detention, not a criminal jailing for speech. After she co-authored a Tufts Daily op-ed about Gaza, her student visa/status was revoked in March 2025 and ICE arrested her on March 25, 2025. She was detained in Louisiana for about six weeks (~45 days).
This also wasn’t “without trial or court case”: she had counsel and multiple hearings, and a federal judge ordered her release on May 9, 2025, citing serious claims of First Amendment and due process violations (with the broader case continuing).
Since this was immigration, the fair comparison is immigration detention generally—where holds can be comparable or longer. For example, the EU can authorize long immigration detention too: under the EU “Return Directive,” pre-removal detention can run up to 6 months, and in some cases be extended to 18 months total. Even where national caps are shorter, they’re still substantial—e.g., France up to 90 days and Spain up to 60 days.
The U.S., reported averages are actually lower (e.g., 47 days in FY2024 and about 50 days as of July 2025).
Meanwhile, on *pure speech*, some European countries see more routine arrests for online expression under public-order/hate-speech frameworks (e.g., the UK reported 12,183 arrests in 2023 under Communications Act s.127 / Malicious Communications provisions; Germany has conducted coordinated raids/prosecutions for online hate speech).
The ECHR explicitly permits broader categories of speech restrictions (Article 10(2)) than U.S. First Amendment doctrine typically allows.
Takeaway: Öztürk is an example of judicial review unwinding a contested detention, not a clean example of “no protections,” and European systems aren’t inherently “shorter/fairer” on detention while also tending to allow more speech restrictions in law than the U.S. baseline.
Any day we start electing judges, we are sliding down a perilous path. Our judicial system must not become politicized and looking at the US mess should surely confirm that.
I did not say we, the citizens, elect judges but it should not be assigned strictly to the PMO but the entire house. It is important that federal judges are non-partisan as much as possible.
Also it should not be mandated that 3 of the Supreme Court judges must be from Ontario and 3 from Quebec while the remaining can be from elsewhere.
As for the US, what is the issue with their judges?
So, while generally what this bit of writing posits is somewhat accurate. It blatantly and glaringly ignores that those throwing out the term fascist and authoritarian dictatorship, “No Kings” protestors etc… are the same Leftists/Globalists and Marxists who supported lockdowns during the pandemic, the law-fare and judicial system abuses directed at the prior Trump Administration etc… and not the Trumpists or those who support the MAGA movement.
Dan Gardner’s piece makes a fair case with solid data: objective rankings from reputable sources like Freedom House, Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index, Heritage Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders consistently show that major European democracies score as high as or higher than the United States on measures of political rights, civil liberties, economic freedom, and press freedom.
The claim that Europe has descended into “tyranny” while the US remains a beacon is overstated and not supported by these aggregate indices. Europe isn’t a monolith—Nordic countries and places like Estonia often top global freedom lists—but overall, Western Europe remains among the freest regions on Earth, comparable to or ahead of the US in many metrics.
That said, Gardner downplays legitimate criticisms of recent European trends, particularly around online speech regulation. The €120 million fine on X in December 2025 wasn’t for content moderation or “censorship” of specific posts, but for violations of the Digital Services Act: misleading blue-check verification (making it easier for scams and impersonation), lack of ad transparency, and restricted researcher data access. It’s consumer protection and platform accountability, not direct speech suppression—similar to how the US regulates products for safety and transparency.
However, the broader context matters. The DSA and national laws in countries like Germany and France have led to increased content removals for hate speech, disinformation, or illegal material (e.g., Holocaust denial, incitement to violence). Critics, including the Trump administration, argue this chills speech, especially for conservative or controversial views, and that EU enforcement disproportionately targets US platforms. The administration’s response—calling it an attack on American free speech, sanctioning EU officials involved in content moderation, and visa bans on anti-disinformation advocates—escalated it into a transatlantic clash.
Gardner rightly notes that free speech concerns exist everywhere, including in the US (e.g., pressures on media, threats against journalists, or partisan distrust). But Europe’s approach often draws stricter lines on hate speech and online harm due to historical reasons (post-WWII lessons on propaganda), while the US prioritizes near-absolute protection under the First Amendment. Neither is “tyranny,” but the European model can feel overreach to Americans accustomed to broader latitude.
On the indices:
• Freedom House’s 2025 report shows ongoing global declines driven by conflict and authoritarianism, with Western Europe and North America still clustering in the “Free” category.
• Cato/Fraser’s latest Human Freedom Index (covering up to recent years) has Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, and others at the top; the US ranks mid-teens to low-20s, behind several European nations.
• Heritage’s 2025 Economic Freedom Index ranks the US 26th (its lowest ever), behind countries like Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, and Denmark.
• RSF’s 2025 Press Freedom Index has Norway #1, many Europeans in the top 10-20, and the US at 57th—reflecting issues like political antagonism toward media and journalist safety concerns.
These charts hold up directionally: no evidence of widespread European “tyranny.”
The real debate isn’t Europe vs. US as freedom’s wasteland, but differing philosophies on balancing speech with harm prevention online. Over-zealous enforcement in Europe (e.g., absurd cases like the pug salute) fuels backlash and far-right narratives, as Gardner admits. Banning our way out rarely works—reactance pushes people toward extremes.
Ultimately, both sides have valid points, but hyperbolic claims of tyranny undermine serious discussion. Freedom thrives with robust debate, not escalation into law-fare, social platform media bans, sanctions or abolition calls. Europe may not be falling; but it’s navigating modern challenges differently—and although the data shows it’s still very free, some of it’s recent decisions and policy positions suggest that the slippery slope is being worrisomely being tested.
moving toward the end of the year some sadness creeps into my mind. How can a population with so much personal freedom in the USA adopt a life of resignation soaked with acceptance of lies that reminds me of my experience in eastern Europe in my younger years.
Thank you for your research. Not surprising but good to hear some honest facts these days!
No small irony that many countries ranked highly across the four categories of freedom are being labeled as socialist states. Norway? Denmark? Really?
Because Norway and Denmark aren't socialist - they're social democracies. DSA tries to play a bit of slight of hand there when they say all they want is to be like Norway and Denmark.
But setting that aside, the reason is these kitchen-sink indices often heavily weight economic freedom vs. civil liberties like speech (in speech - with the 1st Amendment - the US is the undisputed leader). This is the same argument many use to suggest the US should pull out of NATO: e.g. the US effectively exists as Europe's military which created a massive drain on our resources and a curtailment of our economic freedom.
The Heritage Foundation lays out the economic freedom issue in the first paragraph of their report: "It is long past time to put the American people first. For too long, the policy agenda in Washington has been defined by well-connected special interests that have severely undercut economic freedom for ordinary hardworking Americans. But on November 5, 2024, the American people spoke up and unambiguously rejected the failed liberal status quo. The reelection of Donald Trump has placed our country at the dawn of a new era. Today, by that dawn’s early light, we can already see the prosperous, cheerful, energetic future it portends."
Not sure underscoring this perspective was the goal of the present work......
https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report
This presentation of US/NATO military relations drives me crazy.
Yes, there has been considerable freeloading. No question. My country, Canada, is one of the worst offenders.
But the idea that, therefore, on military matters the US has been horribly taken advantage of, with Europeans and Canadians enjoying ill-gotten wealth as a result, is a ridiculous cartoon.
As the military giant of NATO, the US led in all things. Think all NATO countries should jointly pay for the development a next-gen fighter? That the development should be led by the US? That it should be built in the US? That all the technological and engineering and manufacturing advancement that accrues should accrue to the US? That the allies should spend huge amounts of money buying it from American factories? As the top dog, the US got NATO to agree to that. And so much more! Yes, allies' military budgets were smaller than they should be, but they were still big money -- and a large portion of that money was spent as the US directed on US equipment built in America.
And don't even get me started on how much political heft the US got from being top military dog! When the US said in international forums to its friends and allies, "say, we need you to do us a favour" it almost never heard "no."
And I have never heard a single MAGA person acknowledge any of this. In some cases, it may be dishonesty. But in most? I don't think Americans have any clue how much power and money they accrued this way. Or how much they are going to lose now.
Don’t think Trump’s win was “unambiguous”. He won popular vote by 1.5 % over Harris. The House of Representatives is very, very close. Dawn of a new era? Yes, if advancing interests of Russia and China are the goal, well done.
Remember when you debated Allan Gregg on whether the future looked brighter for Canada or the US?
You took the side of the US, and I'd think you were proven right. But the important point is that you debated the question. You were willing to have your side challenged.
How about on this issue? Michael Shellenberger used to be far left. Now ...
https://youtu.be/u32iWn4zlqg?si=7unYGbbEOPuexuIL
Schellenberger is ridiculous. Intellectually dishonest. Sorry, not wasting time on him.
How lazy? I'm surprised. You've thrown in the towel on engagement over the last decade. You took on Gregg in a rather hostile environment when most would have wanted you, Gregg, and every other 'intellectual' to favor Canada. What has become of you that "Schellenberger is ridiculous. Intellectually dishonest." strikes you as even amounting to a reply? Why even bother?
I would only point out that the list of “facts” merely represents a compilation of “opinions” (of the analysts and advisors and whoever else was involved in voting on the various metrics used). (I only looked up the Freedom House methodology so I can’t speak to the other charts, but presumably they also only reflect the opinions of whoever was in the room, rather than some objective measure).
Meanwhile, the rise in vote-share of right-leaning parties in multiple EU states would seem to suggest that the progressive status quo in those nations is enjoying diminishing support from their own citizens…which doesn’t map directly onto “freedom”, but does better reflect the perception of the citizenry of those member states of the overall direction of their governments. ‘Still free but with their heads up their butts’ seems to describe UK 2025.
Well, yes. Any index that attempts to quantify a concept as amorphous as freedom will necessarily involve lots of value choices in the construction of the methodology and subjective judgements about the weighting of factors. Literally any index.
But you are slipping quietly past the obvious: First, a couple of these indexes come from organizations which are not remotely sympathetic to Europe, or indeed are actively hostile. That Europe still ranks well is noteworthy, surely. Second -- and more basically -- they are presented in response to a particular claim about the state of freedom in Europe. The gap between the claim and what they show is GIGANTIC. There's no finesse required here. The claim is bullshit. Which is the point of the article.
As to the actual state of Europe, sure, I agree, it's got huge problems. If you find it congenial to dwell on those, feel free. But that's simply not relevant to this article.
As I said, I only looked into the freedom house methodology. For before you accept the result of any study or experiment, you have to evaluate their methods to know if it gives any hope of evaluating what they’ve wanted to evaluate.
Freedom house did not list all 130+ analysts involved. Of the ones they did list, it appeared roughly half (on cursory inspection) were of European affiliation. And I could not find who voted in what way. It makes it difficult/impossible to assess for inherent bias among the analysts.
You seem to treat the “subjective judgment” of the indices as the unvarnished truth, against which to compare the claims of the Trump admin re: Europe. That’s fine….I happen to agree with you but this all represents not much more than a difference of “subjective” opinion.
Btw, there are plenty of “objective” indices…just not in this type of arena.
As I also noted, it’s not just me who is “dwelling” on Europe’s problems…it seems like their citizens are increasingly doing so as well. And that’s a far bigger story than any single example of Trump admin buffoonery (which occurs on any day ending in -Y).
Thanks for this. It should be reposted often and everywhere!
Wow, thanks for so many freedom of speech charts.
To clarify: none of these charts were about freedom of speech.
These are heavily compounded, "kitchen sink" indices which weight all sorts of factors beyond pure free speech.
Here is a breakdown:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dgardner/p/ranking-freedom?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=192691913
I'm sorry, this is wrong. Free speech is a component, but only one of many. And your response is not a rebuttal -- it is a moving of the goal posts. I'll have a lengthier response there.
My response was to someone who said: "Wow, thanks for so many freedom of speech charts." - My point was/is that those were not freedom of speech charts (they were catch all, kitchen-sink metrics which have little to do with freedom of speech).
As for your suggestion that I'm "moving the goal posts" I address that in my lengthier response there.
I see that Canada and Sweden score high on the personal freedom metrics. I can only speak about Sweden (and Canada seems to be emulating Sweden in recent years), where we have government control of thoughts, opinions, manners etc. We have lots of elephants in the room that nobody pretends to see. I am curious to see how freedom house can give Sweden such high score when all this oppression, control, censorship etc goes on. I have sent a question to them and will be interested to see if and how they respond.
To be clear, if freedom house et al continues to give Sweden high ranking they are contributing to the problems we have, since politicians and hallelujah intellectuals will use their measurements as an excuse for not fixing the problems.
As for the media, my impression is strongly influenced by Chomsky/Herrmanns "Manufacturing consent" and similar analysis. The same analysis applies to media in all western countries, but the tendencies are stronger in the US, where power is concentrated. The obstacles to good reporting and journalism are rarely formal, in the sense that it isn't the law that prevents media from exposing corruption. It is the fact that the media is part of the power systems. Ownership, culture, selection bias (who becomes a public intellectual/journalist etc) and so on. Lots of things like that.
In Sweden, the problem is not so much the laws regarding media (although something like the Snowden revelations would never have been published in Swedish press due to national security laws). The problem is mostly the conformist culture and cowardice.
Most swedes are afraid of conflicts. They avoid it at all costs. The reason, I believe, is cowardice. And cowards want to feel safe. They worship the people or institutions that display power and dominance. In the US it is mostly the military. In Sweden it is the police agencies. It is the same psychology as when weak women seeks out strong, muscular men to protect them from harm. Institutions that display power, dominance, force, subjugation etc gain support when the population consists of a high degree of cowards. Police state measures isn’t met with the repulsion that would be the natural instinct if we mostly cared about living in a free, liberal democracy.
Thanks for the facts and charts. Yes, I DO love them.
Hey Dan, great article. One misspelling, I think. In Freedom House paragraph you write: “Their methodology has evolved with time but not it’s widely seen as one of the best.” Do you mean “now it’s widely seen”? Keep up great work.
You're right that many indices show European countries and Canada outperforming the US on overall freedom metrics. Freedom House's 2025 report does note Canada scoring higher than the US on political rights and civil liberties. That said, the picture varies by index. The Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World 2025 report (using 2023 data) ranks Canada 11th globally, behind the US at 5th and several European nations like Switzerland (4th) and Denmark (9th). These differences often come down to how each measure weighs economic policies versus personal liberties. Interesting spread.
Let's explore this analysis a bit.
"There’s an old lawyer’s maxim that when the facts are with you, pound the facts. Then shut up."
Indeed - let's work from that perspective.
It's true that these heavily compounded, "kitchen sink scores" from sources like Freedom House, and the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index (HFI), along with the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) often place European nations ahead of the US. However, this overlooks critical nuances: these indexes rely on lagged data (HFI is from 2023 for example), they often heavily weight economic factors over civil liberties like speech, and they fail to capture the escalating censorship trends in Europe and Canada during 2024–2025. Far from "thoughtless enforcement" of minor issues, as you suggest, Europe's approach to online speech—through arrests, compelled platform censorship, and hate speech exceptions—represents a systemic slide toward illiberalism that the US's First Amendment largely avoids.
Below, I'll break this down with data, highlighting why the US remains freer in fundamental rights despite lower overall rankings.
1. Indexes Lag Behind Real-Time Declines in Speech Freedoms
Your charts show Europe dominating top spots, but the 2025 editions of these indexes use 2023 data cutoffs, missing post-pandemic escalations in repression. For instance, Freedom House's 2025 report notes a 19th consecutive year of global freedom decline, with Europe facing "uphill battles" from political pressures and online controls—yet aggregate scores remain high due to strong rule-of-law baselines. RSF's 2025 World Press Freedom Index describes an "all-time low" globally, with economic fragility and polarization dragging down even high-rankers like Germany (11th) and the UK (20th), while the US sits at 57th due to media consolidation and journalist threats (primarily from non-governmental sources, such as the public, protesters, political extremists, or societal pressures, rather than direct state-sponsored violence or arrests). Critiques argue these metrics undervalue compelled censorship under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), which over 100 advocates in 2025 called a "global speech police" mechanism, forcing platforms to remove content (including cross-border spillover incentives) or face fines—functionally equivalent to authoritarian blocking.
Consider Cato's 2025 HFI: Europe fills most top slots (e.g., Switzerland at 9.15, Denmark at 9.03), but its "Expression and Information" sub-scores (0–10 scale) reveal vulnerabilities not emphasized in your overview. The US's 8.5 reflects polarization (not legal restrictions - which are largely nonexistent), while Europe's high marks (e.g., UK 9.2, Germany 9.1) predate 2024–2025 arrests for online speech, such as the UK's >12,000 cases in 2023 alone (up 121% since 2017) and Germany's nationwide raids. In Canada (HFI 8.85 overall, 9.0 expression), the failed Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act, 2024) would have compelled platforms to censor "harmful" content (including hate-fomenting material) under a duty-of-care regime, chilling speech via proxy—outcomes critics likened to authoritarianism—while the ongoing Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act, 2025) advances related Criminal Code changes without direct platform mandates.
These trends suggest future indexes will reflect sharper drops, undermining your snapshot.
2. Speech Protections: The US's Relative Absolutism vs. Europe's Exceptions
You downplay European speech curbs as minor, but the US's First Amendment lacks a hate speech exception, protecting even offensive views unless inciting imminent harm (per Brandenburg v. Ohio). Europe and Canada, conversely, criminalize "hate speech" broadly, enabling arrests for tweets—over 30 in the UK during 2024 riots alone, and dozens in Germany for "insults" or memes. Other exceptions compound this. Europe's broader carve-outs, often justified by ECHR Article 10(2), risk chilling dissent—unlike the US's robust jurisprudence.
And for European readers who may not realize how damaging these infantilizing speech codes are to free expression, I'd encourge them to review this article:
https://www.thefire.org/news/world-without-hate-speech
3. Media Ecosystems: Diversity and Ownership Vulnerabilities
Press freedom metrics "split hairs" on subtle pressures, but I'd argue the ecosystem diversity offers a clearer lens. The US boasts ~7,000+ independent news outlets and ~1,500 broadcasters, dwarfing Europe's—yet concentration is a drag in RSF scores. Europe scores high on pluralism via public broadcasters, but this model invites hidden influence: the BBC's 2025 survey revealed only 43% view it as independent, amid resignations over perceived pressures. Billionaire-owned US media, while potentially biased, often litigates against regulations (e.g., 1st Amendment challenges - all the way to SCOTUS), a resistance public entities like RAI in Italy (politically appointed) rarely match.
4. Economic Weighting and Broader Freedoms
Your metrics heavily favor economic liberty (Heritage's 12 indicators are 75% economic), explaining the US's lower rank (~60–69 score) amid "overregulation." Yet Heritage's 2025 preface ties this to Trump's reelection as a rejection of "liberal status quo," a conservative slant that might alienate your readers! (e.g. be careful what you wish for: these "economic freedom" arguments are being used by proponents of NATO dissolution....).
Beyond speech, the US Bill of Rights protects unique elements like gun rights (2nd Amendment) and grand juries (5th), absent or limited elsewhere.
In sum, while Europe's indexes shine, they mask a "free speech recession" that the US's constitutional bulwarks better resist. Trump's rhetoric may overstate but ignoring these trends risks underestimating real divergences in liberty.
All is clearly not well in Europe/Canada.
Lance, thanks for the long reply, but I have to be blunt: This is all an exercise in moving the goalpost.
The MAGA attack on Europe is not exclusively about free speech. It is about "freedom" writ large. One of the big claims is that the EU is hostile to democratic liberties. See JD Vance's speech earlier this year. I wrote my piece in reply to that. You are arguing about something else.
But now a couple of points about yours.
First, you end with "all is clearly not well in Europe/Canada." Do you see anyone arguing "all is well in Europe/Canada"? I don't. And I haven't. In fact, I went on at length about the European approach to hate speech, which I think is fundamentally misguided. So who exactly are you arguing with?
Second, you write I "downplay European speech curbs as minor." I called them out at length and denounced them as useless and counterproductive. Short of pulling my hair out while swearing, what more would I have to do to avoid "downplaying" in your mind?
Third, your observations about European hate speech laws simply ignore the possibility that there are countervailing concerns and take it as given that the position you prefer is superior. I don't like hate speech laws but I do recognize that there are legitimate concerns behind them and these exercises in drawing lines for speech are always complex and difficult. And while I tend to favour something closer to the US approach, I don't buy the lazy belief that it is "absolutist" and therefore best: For one thing, the US approach has always been to draw lines without appearing to draw lines, by simply taking speech the courts don't want to protect and saying "it's not speech so it's not protected." The Canadian approach, eg, at least as the virtue of honesty -- by saying, "yes this is speech and it is therefore protected but we must draw a line somewhere by deciding where reasonable limits lie." (Also: treating current 1A law as the minimum bar for "freedom" would mean that the US has been a "tyranny" for most of its history. Does that make sense to you? https://dgardner.substack.com/p/what-the-history-of-free-speech-tells )
And you're missing the rather obvious point of using freedom indexes by right-wing organizations: It tilts the playing field heavily in favour of MAGA's claim. Yet even with that bias, the results don't come within a country mile of supporting that claim.
As for lagging data, yes, of course that's true and I'm sure Heritage will be delighted to call deregulation a great success in 2025 and jump the US up a bunch of spots ... which won't change my point in the slightest. But you're missing that a few other things happened in 2025 -- like the sidelining of Congress in favour of governance by executive fiat or a head of state threatened to execute a legislator for stating a fact he didn't want stated. It'll be fascinating to see what those changes do to the rankings.
Dan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's clear we're both digging into these issues seriously, and I appreciate the engagement. We agree that no one, including you, is claiming "all is well" in Europe or Canada. We share common ground on hate speech laws being misguided, useless, and counterproductive, as you put it in your original piece. My rebuttal isn't trying to invent a straw man but to test whether the indexes you cite fully refute the core of the MAGA critique, especially since - as you say - JD Vance's Munich speech was the impetus for your article. By linking that speech to the Trump administration's portrayal (which you called a "fraud. A crock. Nonsense"), it seems fair to examine how Vance's points align with the problems you already acknowledge, potentially weakening your blanket dismissal.
On the Vance speech: It does touch on broader democratic liberties like election integrity and migration policies, but a close reading shows it's overwhelmingly focused on speech and speech-adjacent concerns—censorship, arrests for expression, suppression of dissent, and the use of laws to silence political opponents. Vance explicitly warns that Europe's "principal danger" is internal, pointing to examples like UK arrests for silent prayer near abortion clinics, Sweden's convictions for Quran-burning, Romania's annulled election over alleged disinformation, and EU regulations clamping down on "misinformation" or "hate" in debates about immigration and national identity. He ties migration policies to speech by arguing that elites use hate speech and incitement laws to silence anti-immigration voices, and on elections and "fear of voters," he claims authorities annul results or bar candidates to sideline populists, effectively expressing distrust in voter choices. This isn't a separate debate—it's directly engaging the speech-driven issues you targeted.
If we agree these problems are real, then dismissing the portrayal as outright nonsense feels like it undercuts your own condemnations, especially given recent trends where speech laws increasingly interfere with politics. For example, far-right candidates have faced barriers tied to their rhetoric: In Romania, pro-Russian candidate Calin Georgescu was barred from the March 2025 presidential re-run partly because of his public statements criticizing NATO and Ukraine support, which were deemed threats to democracy. In France, there were heated debates about banning National Rally figures for "hate speech" related to migration. Germany's AfD has seen funding restrictions and ongoing investigations for "incitement" in anti-immigration statements, while Spain's Vox and Portugal's Chega have faced fines and content bans for similar rhetoric on migration. Across the EU, the Digital Services Act and political advertising rules (effective October 2025) have led to disproportionate content removals targeting populist messaging, with a reported 15% rise in hate speech probes against politicians.
This supports the idea that speech laws can enable selective interference—often justified as protecting democracy but risking the suppression of voter-preferred views. The pattern fits Vance's warning that elites are putting a thumb on the scale against certain parties and candidates.
On the US "absolutist" approach and history: I fully agree—the First Amendment hasn't always been robust. Much of US history involved significant restrictions (Sedition Acts, Comstock laws, Red Scares, obscenity bans). Protections truly strengthened in the early 20th century, starting with Justice Brandeis's influential dissents (like Whitney v. California in 1927, advocating for "more speech" to counter bad ideas). But here's the key difference today: US protections are trending stronger through recent jurisprudence, while Europe and Canada's are weakening.
Recent Supreme Court cases illustrate this: Murthy v. Missouri (2024) limited government coercion of platforms to censor content; NetChoice v. Paxton/Moody (2024) affirmed platforms' editorial rights as protected speech; and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023, reaffirmed in ongoing cases) barred compelled speech. These decisions provide real recourse—Trump's threats (like those against critics) often fail constitutional muster in courts. In contrast, Europe sees routine arrests for online speech (e.g., thousands in the UK for social media posts), and parties/candidates face investigations or barriers tied to their rhetoric.
You're right that 2025 US developments (executive actions, threats) could hurt future rankings, and indexes like Heritage might boost for deregulation while Freedom House flags institutional strain. Yet US courts and federalism offer safeguards that Europe's more embedded laws (hate speech crimes, DSA enforcement) lack.
I don't see this as moving the goalposts—it's testing whether aggregate, economically weighted indexes (even with a rightward tilt) fully address Vance's speech-focused warnings. If we agree on the underlying problems, perhaps the portrayal isn't "nonsense" but a call to scrutinize trends before they worsen. Curious for your thoughts—maybe the real discussion is about how much weight speech deserves in these rankings?
What nonsense to say Canada is freer than the US.
The US elects it's senators and each state regardless of size has two. In Canada, senators are selected by the PMO.
The PMO also selects judges and heads of the RCMP, etc. In the US the senate votes on them.
The majority of media in Canada is fully government paid for, CBC, or significantly so, so reporting is very biased to supporting anything the government does.
I could go on....
I'm sure you could go on. But consider that you are only citing facts (or to be more precise, your interpretation of the facts, which are debatable) which support your conclusion, while ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. For example, yes, Canada and the United States both have a second legislative chamber called a "Senate." But that's where the similarities end. The Canadian Senate has a small fraction of the power of the US Senate, so the fact that Senators aren't elected simply isn't that important.
In any event, what you are objecting to is a conclusion reached not by me but by Freedom House. May I suggest you read that organization's report (it's linked) to see how it drew its conclusions? If you think it's flawed some way, do let me know.
Dan, you sited them so I interpreted your support.
The US constutions free speech and right to self defense plus property rights puts it far above Canada. And look at BCs' adoption of UNDRIP; taking on foreign policies is asinine. A free country elects leaders to develop its own policies
Thank you for your writings though, I appreciate them.
There is only a limited supply of freedom indexes. Freedom House's is one of the most widely respected. So of course I cited it. And others. Because whatever their strengths and weaknesses, they're the best measures we have.
And... aren't you even a little curious to find out HOW Freedom House draws its conclusions?
I’d like to take you up on the point of free speech: Earlier today I was having a discussion who took the view that free speech rules were superior in the USA. After a bit of to and fro, they finally commented on the case of Rumeysa Ozturk.
I responded, that if your free speech rules apply to only some people, then they are not actually rights, they’re privileges.
I’d rather live in a country, where my rights are guaranteed by the ECHR. It’s a superior foundation than the US constitution.
“Superior” is a preference, not a fact—and “guaranteed by the ECHR” is overstated. The ECHR is an international treaty (not a constitution), many rights are *qualified* (e.g., Article 10(2) expressly permits restrictions on speech if deemed “necessary in a democratic society”), and states can even derogate in emergencies (Article 15). You also generally only reach Strasbourg *after exhausting domestic remedies* (Article 35), so it isn’t an immediate, self-executing personal guarantee.
If we’re talking *free speech specifically*, the U.S. is often more protective: the First Amendment’s “make no law… abridging” framework plus the *Brandenburg* “imminent lawless action” standard (coupled with centuries of jurisprudence) leaves far less room for “hate speech/insult” style restrictions than Article 10(2). And beyond speech, the U.S. Bill of Rights contains several unusually explicit guarantees that the ECHR does not match in the same categorical way—like an enumerated right to keep and bear arms, grand-jury indictment protection, and detailed trial rights (jury, confrontation, compulsory process, counsel). The ECHR has important fair-trial protections, but they’re framed more generally and remain subject to the Convention’s limitation structure—so calling the ECHR *categorically* superior isn’t a factual claim.
Among the other points you list, is the requirement for grand juries and jury trials. You seem to imply that a justice system cannot be just without them.
And yet, there are countries in Europe, where the justice system is arranged very differently, eg there are some courts where a judge is sitting with some lay people, but no juries as such. There are countries, where judges play a far more active (investigative magistrates) roles. And yet across Europe our justice systems work.
And coming back to Rumeysa Ozturk, she ended up in jail for writing that article, for her none of the protections (jury trial, grand juries) worked.
If human rights are only valid for some humans…. we have seen that particular movie before. We in Europe. We, who on the basis of those experiences decided to write the ECHR.
I appreciate that you responded. And maybe you’ll respond again?
As I noted below, that's a mischaracterization of the Ozturk case: she had her visa revoked and she was therefore being held in immigration detention. The EU can authorize long immigration detention too: under the EU “Return Directive,” pre-removal detention can run up to 6 months, and in some cases be extended to 18 months total. Even where national caps are shorter, they’re still substantial—e.g., France up to 90 days and Spain up to 60 days.
Further, she had representation and hearings all along and the case was ultimately thrown out on 1st Amendment grounds (as it should have been). That's an example of the system working (meanwhile, in the EU, you can be arrested/detained for holding the "wrong" opinion...or posting mean tweets).
I encourage you to read the full response:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dgardner/p/ranking-freedom?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=193060805
As regards your other points listed in the US constitution, the way you mention the right to bear arms indicates that you think this is something positive.
Can I tell you, that this is a uniquely American perspective and that many in the rest of the world think that you are utterly bonkers? Especially given the recent change in attitude, that this is a personal right, which cannot be restricted (Heller, Bruen).
But then I live in a country, where our most recent mass/school shooting was in 1996. We banned private guns a fortnight later.
Another point about my country, something which might surprise you - our police officers carry no guns, they are unarmed.
It works.
"Bonkers" or no, removing the right to bear arms is by definition authoritarian.
Personally, I simply can't imagine believing that consenting, law abiding adults should be unable to own a firearm. Totally unfathomable. You do you...but don't for a moment delude yourself.
I appreciate your response. However, as we’re talking free speech in particular, any claims that the US’ rules are better fall apart with the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, who ended up in jail (without a trial or court case!) for writing an article.
One of the rights listed in the ECHR is the right to due process, it is a very important right, something which the US does not have. And it shows. Eg the case of this particular young lady. Yes, there are some protections via some of the amendments, but clearly they are insufficient.
The Rumeysa Öztürk case was an immigration detention, not a criminal jailing for speech. After she co-authored a Tufts Daily op-ed about Gaza, her student visa/status was revoked in March 2025 and ICE arrested her on March 25, 2025. She was detained in Louisiana for about six weeks (~45 days).
This also wasn’t “without trial or court case”: she had counsel and multiple hearings, and a federal judge ordered her release on May 9, 2025, citing serious claims of First Amendment and due process violations (with the broader case continuing).
Since this was immigration, the fair comparison is immigration detention generally—where holds can be comparable or longer. For example, the EU can authorize long immigration detention too: under the EU “Return Directive,” pre-removal detention can run up to 6 months, and in some cases be extended to 18 months total. Even where national caps are shorter, they’re still substantial—e.g., France up to 90 days and Spain up to 60 days.
The U.S., reported averages are actually lower (e.g., 47 days in FY2024 and about 50 days as of July 2025).
Meanwhile, on *pure speech*, some European countries see more routine arrests for online expression under public-order/hate-speech frameworks (e.g., the UK reported 12,183 arrests in 2023 under Communications Act s.127 / Malicious Communications provisions; Germany has conducted coordinated raids/prosecutions for online hate speech).
The ECHR explicitly permits broader categories of speech restrictions (Article 10(2)) than U.S. First Amendment doctrine typically allows.
Takeaway: Öztürk is an example of judicial review unwinding a contested detention, not a clean example of “no protections,” and European systems aren’t inherently “shorter/fairer” on detention while also tending to allow more speech restrictions in law than the U.S. baseline.
Any day we start electing judges, we are sliding down a perilous path. Our judicial system must not become politicized and looking at the US mess should surely confirm that.
I did not say we, the citizens, elect judges but it should not be assigned strictly to the PMO but the entire house. It is important that federal judges are non-partisan as much as possible.
Also it should not be mandated that 3 of the Supreme Court judges must be from Ontario and 3 from Quebec while the remaining can be from elsewhere.
As for the US, what is the issue with their judges?
Freedom of expression has never fully existed, does not exist and will not exist, bonsai Freedom exists and suits those who control others.
So, while generally what this bit of writing posits is somewhat accurate. It blatantly and glaringly ignores that those throwing out the term fascist and authoritarian dictatorship, “No Kings” protestors etc… are the same Leftists/Globalists and Marxists who supported lockdowns during the pandemic, the law-fare and judicial system abuses directed at the prior Trump Administration etc… and not the Trumpists or those who support the MAGA movement.
Dan Gardner’s piece makes a fair case with solid data: objective rankings from reputable sources like Freedom House, Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index, Heritage Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders consistently show that major European democracies score as high as or higher than the United States on measures of political rights, civil liberties, economic freedom, and press freedom.
The claim that Europe has descended into “tyranny” while the US remains a beacon is overstated and not supported by these aggregate indices. Europe isn’t a monolith—Nordic countries and places like Estonia often top global freedom lists—but overall, Western Europe remains among the freest regions on Earth, comparable to or ahead of the US in many metrics.
That said, Gardner downplays legitimate criticisms of recent European trends, particularly around online speech regulation. The €120 million fine on X in December 2025 wasn’t for content moderation or “censorship” of specific posts, but for violations of the Digital Services Act: misleading blue-check verification (making it easier for scams and impersonation), lack of ad transparency, and restricted researcher data access. It’s consumer protection and platform accountability, not direct speech suppression—similar to how the US regulates products for safety and transparency.
However, the broader context matters. The DSA and national laws in countries like Germany and France have led to increased content removals for hate speech, disinformation, or illegal material (e.g., Holocaust denial, incitement to violence). Critics, including the Trump administration, argue this chills speech, especially for conservative or controversial views, and that EU enforcement disproportionately targets US platforms. The administration’s response—calling it an attack on American free speech, sanctioning EU officials involved in content moderation, and visa bans on anti-disinformation advocates—escalated it into a transatlantic clash.
Gardner rightly notes that free speech concerns exist everywhere, including in the US (e.g., pressures on media, threats against journalists, or partisan distrust). But Europe’s approach often draws stricter lines on hate speech and online harm due to historical reasons (post-WWII lessons on propaganda), while the US prioritizes near-absolute protection under the First Amendment. Neither is “tyranny,” but the European model can feel overreach to Americans accustomed to broader latitude.
On the indices:
• Freedom House’s 2025 report shows ongoing global declines driven by conflict and authoritarianism, with Western Europe and North America still clustering in the “Free” category.
• Cato/Fraser’s latest Human Freedom Index (covering up to recent years) has Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, and others at the top; the US ranks mid-teens to low-20s, behind several European nations.
• Heritage’s 2025 Economic Freedom Index ranks the US 26th (its lowest ever), behind countries like Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, and Denmark.
• RSF’s 2025 Press Freedom Index has Norway #1, many Europeans in the top 10-20, and the US at 57th—reflecting issues like political antagonism toward media and journalist safety concerns.
These charts hold up directionally: no evidence of widespread European “tyranny.”
The real debate isn’t Europe vs. US as freedom’s wasteland, but differing philosophies on balancing speech with harm prevention online. Over-zealous enforcement in Europe (e.g., absurd cases like the pug salute) fuels backlash and far-right narratives, as Gardner admits. Banning our way out rarely works—reactance pushes people toward extremes.
Ultimately, both sides have valid points, but hyperbolic claims of tyranny undermine serious discussion. Freedom thrives with robust debate, not escalation into law-fare, social platform media bans, sanctions or abolition calls. Europe may not be falling; but it’s navigating modern challenges differently—and although the data shows it’s still very free, some of it’s recent decisions and policy positions suggest that the slippery slope is being worrisomely being tested.