I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.
But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that).
What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe.
For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US.
Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".
> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
> I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it
Not quite. You did not quote a critical part -- being free from consequences from the government. And as governments, almost everywhere, give themselves a monopoly on the use of force "if I say the wrong thing I get punished for it" does not apply.
Thus whoever wants to punish you needs to petition the government for help and prove their case -- if I make false claims that you consider damaging you can ask the government to help and prove your case in a civil court (instead of, say, punching me in the snout to punish me directly). Just my 2c.
There are a bunch of relevant passages about this in Animal Farm, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.
For example-- that famous one where the hedgehog pornography tycoon runs an add in his magazine accusing one of the pigs of having sex with his own mom, and then is cleared by a panel of pig judges who rule that parody is protected speech.
Where is that passage in Animal Farm? Maybe I don't have the details correct, but I certainly remember reading a long passage where Orwell clearly establishes that a book of satire like Animal Farm itself would be allowed in the Animal Farm universe. I thought it was such a nice touch of optimism in an otherwise dreary book. (And if I remember correctly it was a welcome respite from those long boring passages of complicated libel case law in the animal world.)
I mean civil consequences. If someone says something I dislike, and I disassociate with them, that's a consequence. Nobody should ever be jailed for their speech and that's what it's designed to protect against.
Libel is special because it's purely a civil matter and usually has to prove malicious intentions.
I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech.
Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist charge.
Please dont do it. 1A is protecting you, but they still got guys with batons, tear gas and tazers. It is not about the letter within some law but rather how it is practised, by insulting someone strong enough, law might protect you but at the end you will still finish as a begger. And, me personally, I wouldnt dare to do it in states. Actually I would rather do it in Switzerland. Or maybe even Thailand.
I disagree. This is the very thing freedom of speech protects, bar violent incitement. The great thing about the US is that FoS is not not just a law, but also a cultural tentpole. I doubt the people holding the tazers would carry out their orders in this case.
Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?
The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict.
Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then there were all the surrounding circumstances of how he set this up.
Prudent defense or not, no law should be written in the first place so as to criminalize a joke YouTube video under its letter. Nor should citizens (or subjects in this case) be compelled to explore the necessities of free expression as a criminal defense for making a simple joke.
Thankfully in the US we have already codified free speech into law. Unfortunately there are still many who do not consider the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be a settled issue.
The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment.
You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
You have it, but it's not pure free speech US style, everything is good because it's the constitution, like bearing arms and whatnot, you have the right to your opinions, but some opinions could lead you to jail.
