Speaking as a UK anon, perhaps USA anons could explain how banning Roseanne's show demonstates freedom of speech? Her Twitter comments, whether racist or not, are separate from her show. If this kind of knock-on effect is taken to its logical conclusion, no-one could ever say anything, at any time, anywhere, over a lifetime, as judged by the virtue-signalling mob as morally wrong, without risking life, limb, career, family - the lot. Is this an example of how your your much-vaunted freedom of speech amendement operates? I speak as a Brit anon who is getting a little fed up with USA anons recognising (rightly) the curb on freedom of speech in the UK while at the same time holding up their current freedom of expression as superior when, plainly, both countries are in the same boat - neither has true freedom of speech any more.
While I'm on the subject of annoying things USA anons post here, how about learning a little more about what the powers of our monarch actually are instead of assuming that they are the same or similar to head-of-state/presidential powers in the USA? Our monarch has very few powers beyond the ceremonial - she does as she's told by the elected PM and government. Her most impoirtant role, afaic, is occupying the head of state position in a very benign way (her powers really are very limited) and preventing the likes of Tony Blair from rigging elections (a la HRC) for personal benefit.
Love you US anons and envy you your POTUS - he's a courageous man unlike a wishy-washy PM May.