3rodents

Again, you're drawing an entirely arbitrary line between physical violence and "hurt feelings". You're reducing speech to just "other people's opinions" but as the U.S. courts have held many times, speech isn't just opinions.

> The other thing is that I guarantee you this is totally selectively enforced and prosecuted

Unlike all other laws? Tell me, who is more likely to end up on death row? To be prosecuted for drug possession? How much jail time is a rich white student likely to receive for rape compared to a poor black student? All laws are selectively enforced and prosecuted.

> I don't know what point you are trying to make here or if you know what freedom of speech is. Government schools and government education bureaucrats developing policies about curriculum and teaching materials doesn't seem to offer useful commentary about freedom of speech, so I really don't know how to respond to your question.

You don't understand that Florida schools banning books because they contain references to homosexuality is a free speech issue? Judge Carlos E. Mendoza in Penguin Random House v. Gibson said "The state’s prohibition of material that ‘describes sexual conduct’ is overbroad and unconstitutional.”. Unfortunately, many other judges did not rule the same way.

The point is that the "free speech" you lord over other countries is arbitrary, those who proclaim the U.S. to have true free speech and countries like the U.K. to be oppressive anti free speech regimes are delusional and have been conned by U.S. exceptionalism.

You can disagree with another county's choice to draw the line somewhere other than where the U.S. draws it but to proclaim the U.S. has real free speech that stands alone from other countries is lying to yourself. What, exactly, is unique about the U.S. free speech laws? That it is a constitutional amendment?

We could debate where the line should be, whether the U.K. or the U.S. has it right or wrong, but to argue that the U.K.'s laws are somehow distinct from the U.S. laws is nonsensical. I do not agree with where the U.K. draws the line. I also do not agree with where the U.S. draws the line.

> It must appear as a spectrum to you because you've been taken in by propaganda used by authoritarians and fundamentalists to justify using actual violence and censorship to crush dissent and criticism.

And for one last final point: how many protestors has the U.S. government killed this year? How many protestors have been killed by the U.K. government for protesting against government policy? I'm sure Renée Good and Alex Pretti and all the other murdered U.S. protestors are comforted in their graves by the glorious anti-authoritarian pro-dissent free speech laws that protected their dissent and protest so well.

Like I said, it is a spectrum. You draw the line at physical violence, an entirely arbitrary line, whereas the U.K. goes further and continues to emotional violence.

And before you argue that there is no such thing as emotional violence: do you agree that some emotional harm can be worse than some physical harm? I'd much rather be punched than subjected to the worst emotional trauma I've experienced in my life.

> In the UK it has become about protecting feelings of people who could just choose to not read, listen, or get themselves worked up about it.

I'm not going to defend U.K. laws but it is patently absurd to say something like this is in the context of a conversation about U.S. vs. U.K. free speech laws when the U.S. courts allow schools to ban certain books because of "protecting feelings of people who could just choose to not read, listen, or get themselves worked up about it". Heaven forbid a Florida student learns about homosexuality, won't anyone think of the parents?

> Plus, under Extended Limited Tax Liability [...] bank accounts [...] Plus, and I reiterate, the difficulty in obtaining a simple bank account without a TIN and proof of address in most countries.

You're doing what so many people who make this argument do. You're taking an extreme example that laws have been crafted to tackle and using it to represent the norm. A normal German citizen with a normal amount of money leaving Germany to become a nomad and travel the world, never establishing tax residency in any other country, will not need to open a bank account anywhere else, nor will they be subject to Extended Limited Tax Liability which is designed to capture tax from people who try to terminate their tax residency before realizing substantial gains on local assets. Completely irrelevant to almost every person on earth.

My original assertion is that unless you are American (or, apparently, Italian) the normal person can up sticks one day and wander the world, and so long as they never establish tax residency anywhere, they will be living an entirely legal tax free[1] life. Of course doing so requires giving up the things humans need, like stability, so it is a terrible life for most, but the point is, it is legal and easy.

> [...] and numerous nomads fly under the radar for various reasons (illegally of course), but I assure you it's way more complicated than "lol just don't be American/Eritrean and travel all the time"

"illegally of course" again, false. There is no universal tax law that we are all subject to. The Common Reporting Standard is intended to combat tax evasion. A person who does not have tax residency is not engaging in tax evasion, they are just a person without tax residency.

Rather than speak in theory and hypotheticals, can you point to any real world examples of someone being charged / tried / accused of tax evasion because they didn't have tax residency?

> plus tax laws constantly change, and not to leave you more loopholes.

Why are you framing it as a loophole? Not having tax residency isn't a loophole, just as not having a car isn't a loophole for a drivers license.

Despite my argument, I am pro taxation. Taxation is needed to support society. We pay taxes to contribute to the society we are a part of. Taxation isn't punitive. But if someone opts out of being a part of a society, if they choose to wander the world, without the benefits of having a home and community, why would they be expected to pay taxes? And to who? Tax residency is a good system, a fair system.

[1] tax free is a bad term anyway because tourists pay consumption taxes but we're talking about income taxes

Again, that's not what the law states. The law is not broken when someone is alarmed or distressed by a comment. The law is broken if you post something that is "likely or intending to" which is not judged by the victim. If you walk into a police station in England and tell them that this comment on Hacker News alarmed and distressed you, it doesn't matter, it is up to the legal system to judge my intent, i.e: whether my comment was "likely to" or "intending to" cause alarm and distress.

Whether you agree with the law or not, it is important to be accurate when discussing it. The U.S. vs. U.K. (not) free speech law discussion online so often seems to frame them as fundamentally different, but they are on the same spectrum. The go-to example of the limits of free speech in context of the U.S. legal system is "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". The U.K. laws are the same in principle but a little further along the spectrum.

Let's pretend my random country generator didn't pick the worst possible example. I should have chosen a country I am familiar with. Let's take Germany. A German tax resident can de-register at any time, so long as they are leaving the country, without first establishing tax residency elsewhere.

Potato potato. No less legitimate than Trump.

I don't wish to fall down the rabbit hole of trying to defend U.K. laws so I'll keep this short. You're being intellectually dishonest. That page does not back up your assertion. You have said "If it causes anxiety to someone, it is illegal" but the page says "intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" which has a different meaning.

You are categorically incorrect.

Picking a random country: Italy. Please explain under what legislation or mechanism an Italian citizen who spends 3 months in Japan, 3 months in South Korea, 3 months in the U.S., 3 months in Norway and then repeats the loop for the rest of their life would owe any taxes to any tax authority?

Almost every country except the United States only taxes their residents, not citizens. Almost every country follows the typical 180 day rule for tax residency.

You're even allowed to post photos of your cocaine on U.K. websites!

The destination of the packet where it is sent, just as a toy sent from the U.S. to a customer in the U.K. is sent to the U.K. rather than the local Fedex store.

If we want to base the argument on technical nuance, 4chan are sending their packets to the U.K. just as the cocaine dealer would be sending packets (of cocaine) to their buyers in the U.K.

That’s the trick. Don’t live anywhere. Every other country taxes based on residency rather than citizenship. If you’re not a U.S. citizen you can just wander around the world living tax free regardless of your income. Don’t stay anywhere long enough to become a tax resident.

That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.

How to Not Pay Any Taxes: don’t be American.

Living tax free is easy enough for everyone except Americans.