Eh, Assange can't be charged with treason, at least not against the United States.
As he is not a citizen or resident of the United States he doesn't owe allegiance to the United States, and therefore he cannot be guilty of treason against the same.

And that is precisely why Europe has the GDPR, to create an actual financial incentive not to screw over users.

We're not "screaming capitalism suxxorz!!1!11" we simply choose to conduct our business in a different manner, you are the ones screaming bloody communism whenever someone does something that's different from laissez faire captalism.

Not letting the corporations buy your government is not the same thing as business unfriendly, there is a whole bunch of corporations that manage to thrive in Europe. There is a huge span between letting corporations do whatever they want and being business unfriendly.

Yes there may be more invention going on in the United States than in Europe just like there is more manufacturing going on in China than in the United States, because it is cheaper but that doesn't mean that the research wouldn't be made if somebody closed that opportunity. Manufacturing happened before China and it will happen after China.

Actually the solution isn't all that complicated, limit the ability of the providers to make it expensive in court. A municipality a democratic organization, it represents the citizens of that particular community, make it obviously legal for them to organize something like this without the big corporations being able to sow a legal mine field because they want to gouge the inhabitants.

Personally I think the ideal would be for the municipality to run dark fiber/cable throughout their city and then let any provider rent it at a rate that accommodates maintenance and future expansion, if no provider shows interest then the municipality can run it's own provider.

Where I live the city lays down empty piping, at least to the switching station whenever it does any sort of extensive digging work on water, sewer or power lines so that whenever they want to lay down fiber it's pretty trivial and basically free since the work was done in tandem with other digging that had to be done either way. It will also be fairly easy to replace the fiber with whatever comes next, just pull the fiber out of the plastic pipe and replace it.

You are correct that some parents accept it but there should be zero tolerance, and the schools should be legally bound to take action and have a plan to detect and deal with bullying. Parents like that should be sent to jail and have their kids taken by social services and sent to a hopefully better home that can teach them acceptable behaviour.

Yes, mandatory(by law) expulsion for the bullies would be a good start, force them to switch schools every year instead.
Give the bullies one chance to stop, bring in their parents and inform them what will happen if their child doesn't stop abusing/harassing others. If that doesn't put an end to it, expel them.

Punishing the victim is never the solution, preventing and punishing the tormentors is.
Society putting more pressure and more abuse on the victim is not going to work and is a generally horrible solution.

If they don't have a problem with roughing up journalists and making their lives difficult I doubt they have much problem with clapping them in irons when they "endanger national security" by releasing unredacted documents.

Playing hardball with the government usually means loosing and getting thrown into jail for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether it's a 3rd world despot or a western democracy holding the power, the difference is you're unlikely to get executed in the latter and the prisons tends to be somewhat better.

No, many European countries requires you to be physically present on their national soil if you want to present a request for asylum. Embassies etc isn't technically considered national soil(except in the media) since the host country can in theory revoke the embassy.

If a law that would let you force Google to delist you or certain stuff then the same law could than likely be used to force those background check agencies to expunge certain data as well. Yes you would have to know about those background check agencies but if/once you do then you could serve them with the equivalent of a DMCA cease and desist letter.

No, as I see it it's almost a textbook case.
Deception is an act to propagate beliefs/things that are not true or not the whole truth.
Displaying paid for advertisements in a way where it is not readily apparent that they are ads and not regular search results is deceptive, it's comparable to a lie by omission. Yes, the government is free to set whatever rules it likes, including limitations on what rules and regulations it can make at a later date, but the regulation that it cannot take certain actions is descendant from the government at some point. To be able to regulate what the United States may or may not do there needs to be a United States to regulate and to be able to make laws for a nation you need to have the power of the government.

No one is twisting Google's arme either, they're free to take their business elsewhere if the climate or price of doing business gets too high for their tastes.
A government is free to set whatever rules it wants for doing business within their jurisdiction, you have as a business you can either choose to comply or choose not to do business there, noone is twisting your arm or forcing you to do anything.

There needs to be a separation because showing paid for results as matched search results is deceptive.

In Sweden the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years.

Nobody has been held accountable because the person who greenlighted the entire thing and therefore accountable, the foreign affairs minister Anna Lindh was murdered before this event came to light, so the accountable cannot be held accountable unless you know of some way to ressurrect the dead to face charges.

Yes that event is very unfortunate and shameful but to claim that the highly public Julian Assange would face the same risk as two "faceless" unknown Egyptians is absurd. When that event came to light there was a big public outcry, the government could not just quietly shuffle Assange over to the US without anyone knowing or noticing.

The UK Supreme Court disagrees with you, in the verdict on extradition they pretty clearly stated that they were of the opinion that The actions Assange stands accused of would constitute a crime in the UK as well.

Sweden cannot make that guarantee because extradition here is a judicial process and the government like in most civil states is forbidden from meddling in the affairs of the courts. The govenment can overrule the courts under certain circumstances such as if Assange was risking death or torture if he was extradited.
The only thing the Swedish government could do to prevent a lawful extradition would be to rescind the extradition agreement with the US...