Are you aware that (h)activists from around the world do not travel to the USA because they fear the consequences, having their equipment seized or being imprisoned?
Do you know why Laura Poitras is living in Berlin right now?
Being a "journalist" is not, and shouldn't ever be, a magic get-out-of-jail-free card. In Brown's own court motions, he agreed that he had threatened the lives and families of FBI agents, and that he had hidden evidence during a warranted search.
I ought to face jail for doing those things. So should Brown.
Unfortunately, that depends on how popular the politician is.
I hope this isn't some weird "because some politicians might get away with obstructing search warrants and issuing death threats, then journalists should be able to get away with it, too." You don't fix a carve-out with more carve-outs.
Canada, and most of the European countries, have successfully prosecuted ordinary people for "hate speech" for saying things that upset people of certain classes.
I don't see where your claim of data manipulation comes from, people have clearly answered the question you were wondering about.
The answer being yes, according to reputable sources, Chomsky would have that liberty of critique in many other countries and in several countries it would appear that he would have more.
On the less serious side, it's like that old joke about American and Soviet journalists, who discuss freedoms and yelling "Down with the USA" at the Times Square and Red Square, respectively. You can do the same at both places without fear of consequences.
What are you agreeing with though? Raverbashing didn't make a statement, he proposed a question. One which has been pretty well answered.
As far as your joke goes however, have you tried standing in Times Square yelling "Down with the USA"? I wouldn't think it would be that safe an enterprise.
There are 45 countries that journalists rank as having better press freedom than the USA.
edit - For comparison, I just looked at the "Freedom of the Press" report by US NGO Freedom House. It has 21 countries with a better rating than the USA.
What difference does freedom make if society is engineered accordingly so that anything but the party line will be lost in the noise? Other than for possible riots, bloodshed and long-term sustainability, is that in any way distinguisable from a "non-free" form of government?
Besides, freedom is only necessary for democracy, not sufficient. So his points all remain valid.
Chomsky is a lot less controversial in a lot of countries outside the US than he is in the US.
I'm sure there are countries where he'd be unable to say what he wants, but there are also a lot of countries (e.g. in Europe) where his political views are reasonably close to mainstream, to the extent where he's no more controversial than the average left wing politician and his main problem would be that he'd be one of many voices saying similar things.
It seems strange to address raver's comment about liberty of critique by saying Chomsky is less controversial in Europe and his views are close to the mainstream.
Th test of a country's liberty is better illustrated by the spectrum of allowed speech rather than whether or not an opinion corresponds with the mainstream. And in my opinion, the spectrum of allowed speech is narrower in the average European country than the US.
"Two men, an American and a Russian were arguing. One said, in my country I can go to the white house walk to the president's office and pound the desk and say "Mr president! I don't like how you're running things in this country!" The Russian said "I can do that too!"
"Really?"
"Yes! I can go to the Kremlin, walk into the general secretary's office and pound the desk and say, Mr. secretary, I don't like how Reagan is running his country!"
