Religion and Ethics Forum

I don't think Trump and Vance's position on free speech has anything to do with actually supporting ... err ... free speech. Seems to me this is driven primarily to protect the major tech companies from having to police the content on their social media and to have a level of responsibility for what is posted (i.e. that they publish).

I had to ask Grok, as Duck Duck Go gave me pages of headlines about Donald Trump rather than answer my question.
Tariffs applied by the UK to US goods:

Cars: The UK applies a 10% tariff on imported cars from the US. This applies to passenger vehicles and is a significant point of discussion in trade negotiations, especially given the US's recent reciprocal tariff actions.

Steel: Tariffs on steel imports from the US can reach up to 25%, depending on the specific type and form of steel. This rate reflects protective measures for the UK steel industry, though it has been subject to adjustments and quotas in the past to manage trade flows.

Agricultural Products: Tariffs on US agricultural goods vary widely. For example, apples face a 0% tariff, while other products like beef or dairy can see higher rates, often ranging from 10% to over 50%, depending on the product and whether it falls under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). TRQs allow a certain volume of goods to enter at a reduced or zero rate, with higher tariffs applied beyond that limit.

Alcohol: The UK imposes excise duties on alcoholic beverages, which apply to both domestic and imported products, but imports from the US also face additional customs duties. For instance, beer might not face a high tariff (often 0% under UKGT), but spirits like whiskey could see tariffs around 0-4%, plus VAT and excise duties applied at the point of sale.

So tariffs aren't bad per se?

Re the French academic - it's up to the US who they let into their country. Same in the UK:

UK Border Force  "has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good." (Home Office)

I don't think it's a good thing to restrict entry because someone said something you disagree with, but then, I don't know what the French academic said. I don't believe, as I have explained, that free speech encompases incitement to violence or threats to individuals.

Governments do things I disagree with all the time. Hypocrisy is rife (not just in governments either).