>Voicing support for the group Palestine Action has been met with quite harsh responses in the UK, even though that group is arguably non-violent

That was my opinion. However one of them was alleged at a recent trial to have hit and injured a policewoman with a sledgehammer.

Free speech is generally considered a human right that should apply to anyone, not just citizens.

It's the basis of democracy, and a healthy democracy does not reject a visitor just because they criticized its government.

Is it not chilling if government can proscribe the things that you say for other people, as if your position is one the government can directly oppose and call illegitimate?

That's certainly a stance you can take, but it's not one I'd expect to see from a US administration that's repeatedly (including from the president less than 48 hours ago) got on its high horse to criticise what it perceives as a government crackdown on freedom of speech in European countries.

Reductionism is the sign of a lack of nuance, I speak badly of the USA but still would like to attend a friend's wedding if they choose to have it there. It doesn't mean I don't have contempt for how the country is being run, or how its society is quite flawed, saying those things don't make me an enemy of the state nor do I hate and dislike every single person and thing from there.

This lack of nuance is exactly one of the major flaws of American society, it's either team red or blue, in-group or out-group, black-and-white thinking is rather childish...

Sure, be one-sided if that's how you want to live you life. The rest of us will continue with nuance, and talk to people we disagree about, and favor freedom of expression above conformity. But again, you do you, I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just understand that many value other values.

Criticizing fascists isn’t “speaking badly” of the US or of american people. A vast majority of people aren’t happy about what’s going on.

Crazy how china became the good guys here. Well played.

Don't you think people should have consequences for the hate speech?

I mean, a quick search of all of these people, and you can find something which absolutely warranted police investigation. That's the police doing what they're meant to do — investigate and ensure public safety.

- Jon Richelieu-Booth was investigated for stalking and making threats. The gun photo was not part of the police investigation.

- Jordan Parlour was charged for suggesting attacking hotels housing asylum seekers.

- Bernadette Spofforth was investigated for distributing misinformation with the intent to incite violence.

- Lucy Connolly for exactly what you say, inciting violence

- Norbert Gyurcsik had and was selling terrorist materials. (Just because you pair something illegal in a melody doesn't change its content...)

(With the exception of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, which was an unlawful arrest and they were had restitution for it.)

> - Jon Richelieu-Booth for posting a picture of himself with a gun in the US

A quick search suggests that the photo with the gun wasn't the sole cause of the arrest, given there were stalking allegations "involving serious alarm or distress" from someone he had a conflict with, where the gun was one part of what caused the complainint to (claim to) feel threatened. Police may well have overreacted due to the gun post, but your framing leaves out rather relevant details.

> - Jordan Parlour for Facebook posts that were deemed ‘hateful.’

Appears to have incited violence by advocating an attack on a hotel, something he pleaded guilty to.

> - Bernadette Spofforth for a post with a “mild inaccuracy”

Was arrested for posting a fake name for an attacker, but released and faced no further action.

Calling potentially putting a target on the back of someone innocent by connecting them to a violent crime a "mild inaccuracy" is at best wildly misleading.

> Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine

These people did get a wrongful arrest payout, but the claim was most certainly not just raising concerns in a private parent's WhatsApp group. The claims including harassment, and causing a nuisance on the school premises. The claim was still wrong, and the payout reflects that the police should not have been so quick to believe the allegations before making an arrest. But your claim is still hyperbole.

> - Lucy Connolly, for a post calling for mass deportation and to set fire to hotels housing immigrants

At least in this one you admitted the arrest was over incitement to violence.

> - Norbert Gyurcsik, for having “extreme right wing music”

No, for buying and distributing albums whose lyrics breach terrorism legislation and intended to incite racial hatred.

I have plenty of issues with UK terror legislation, which I believe is being abused to shut down legitimate speech at times, but framing this the way you did is again wildly misleading and hyperbolic.

But even if none of your claims were wildly misleading, none of them support your initial claim:

> You are allowed to say it. Unlike UK, you won’t be arrested. But you won’t be allowed in.

... about a comment referring to criticism of the government.

None of the cases above were relevant to that. Most of them are relating to classes of speech that are not protected in the US either.

This is hysterical. What actions is it you imagine the UK government would have taken to disadvantage me in secret because of what I've said about them that have been so inconsequential that I haven't noticed them?