[derleth]

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere.

We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

[vacri]

The functional difference between free speech in Australia and the United States isn't that strong. On the idealistic part of the spectrum, the US does win, but in terms of how it affects your life, they're pretty comparable. It is interesting to note that Australia is consistently rated superior to the US on the Press Freedom Index, and both are outscored by a passel of European countries.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

[derleth]

OK, to begin with, Australia still bans things. This is something the USA grew out of decades ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

It's insane.

Also, there are the defamation laws:

https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

> In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others.

Basically, defamation laws in the USA are much more defendant-friendly compared to their equivalents in Commonwealth countries. Australia deserves much praise for apparently being much better in this regard compared to the UK, for example: Australian law recognizes truth to be an absolute defense, which is not generally the case in Commonwealth libel laws.

Canada deserves special approbation for its insane hate speech laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...

Which are similar to the insane laws against denying the Holocaust or even using certain images in parts of Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_legal...

There have been just as many substantial fascist parties in places with those laws as there are in places without them: Zero. They're an attack on free expression, a universal human right, and they're an absurd over-reaction, an example of terrified cowering at a few worthless fools. What's worse, they do nothing to solve any of the real problems modern Europe has with anti-Roma and anti-Muslim racism.

[gradstudent]

> we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

s/Roma/Mexicans; s/European/American;

Fixed.

[derleth]

I note you didn't respond to the fact it's illegal to dress as a Muslim in some places in Europe but it's legal everywhere in the USA.

[catmanjan]

>ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world

Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor...

>We're also much less racist than Europe

That's like comparing apples and oranges or countries and continents

[pyre]

> Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor...

I think it refers to enjoying the outdoors. E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Crest_Trail

[karamazov]

The entirety of the US is more comparable to Europe as a whole than to any individual European country.

[lotharbot]

> "Does rough it mean suffer?"

With a few seconds on your favorite search engine, you could discover that "rough it" is an idiom commonly used to refer to camping in a nature-heavy setting (without electricity/plumbing.)