Including things like "media bias" and other dubious criteria in freedom of speech rankings is obviously skewed.
Whatever the ECHR might say what I wrote in my previous comment is factual. In Europe "freedom of speech" comes with a long list of small print.
In fact, this is so embedded that the article of the ECHR you quote provides for restrictions and even states that they are "necessary": "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." QED
The distinction is academical. As I wrote, freedom of speech is not absolute in the USA either, think copyright law or gag orders etc. And arguing about this day after Colbert's show is cancelled...
The internet will never run out of idiots arguing that there is no freedom in the EU and freedom of speech is a uniquely US thing. The German constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech? Doesn't matter. The US limits plenty of types of speech? Who cares.
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
> Under Title 18 Section 871 of the United States Code it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States." This also applies to any "President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect."[45] This law is distinct from other forms of true threats because the threatener does not need to have the actual capability to carry out the threat; thus, for example, a person in prison could be charged.
> The German constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech?
Article 5 of the Basic Law guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by broadcast and film. It immediately restricts those freedoms with "limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour." https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...
Many kinds of speech aren't covered by the enumerated freedoms in the first place, and "protection of young persons" is the basis for age-verification requirements.
Though given that the US constitution claims to guarantee freedom of speech while many things that people would ordinarily consider speech remain illegal, maybe "freedom of expression within limits" and "freedom of speech" is a distinction without difference in practice. But I think the former approach is more honest.
I am not a lawyer, but, including as in the US case the interpretations adopted by the constitutional courts, the "freedom of expression in spoken and written word and image" is considered to not enumerate a limited list of expressions but cover all forms of expression.
It is true that paragraph 2 allows limiting expression, but the point here is that generally it is not permissible to limit speech based on its content, but only due to other "general laws" that aim to do non-speech related things (including upholding other constitutional rights).
In the case of protection of honor, I find interesting the interpretation of the constitutional court that this does not limit speech if there are alternative non-demeaning ways to express your opinion. This to me seems the strongest divergence to the US concept of Freedom of Speech. If you can express the same content in a less demeaning way, the courts can force you to do so. Still: It is considered crucial by the constitutional court that general laws do not limit the freedom to criticize.
Overall the court has noted that the limits of freedom of expression need to be as small as possible, and that there always needs to be a balance of other (constitutional) rights being protected when there is such a limit placed. Laws can not arbitrarily restrict speech, and the special importance of the constitutional right to freedom of speech needs to be considered.
The protections around speech are constructed differently than in the US, but overall seem to arrive at roughly similar results. It is also important to note that protection of speech has varied quite a lot over the 20th century in the US. From 1919 for 50 years, Supreme Court precedent was that advocating against the draft was illegal:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
In this case the clear and present danger is that of "hindering the governments war effort". This was the status of Free Speech in the US at the time the German constitution was written.
So yeah, there are important differences, a ton of nuance, many similarities between German and US cases, etc... Which is why I can't really consider anything that boils down to "Well the US has free speech, unlike EU/Germany/...", without even hinting at the freedom of speech trade-offs that are made in both systems, as an argument made in good faith.
Well, the Internet will never run out who don't read because I can't see anyone arguing that there is no freedom in the EU. No-one is arguing there it is absolute in the US, either. I guess insults are easier than a thoughtful reply.
"in the US sense" being the key word. Hence my previous comment about people not reading...
None of the replies I got address the point. They are at best beside it, at worst they are misrepresentations and bare insults (guidelines, indeed!) for no apparent reason. Is it because "EU good, Trump bad"? I have no idea.
The restrictions on "free speech" that European countries implement, and which are increasing, would be unthinkable in the US because of their understanding of "free speech" and the legal protections in place.
>The restrictions on "free speech" that European countries implement, and which are increasing, would be unthinkable in the US
This is why you don't get a "serious" reply. You think too highly of US free speech, and it does not have a foot in reality, and you use "US good, Trump bad" crap when Trump is not even mentioned, it is more than you have a bias of "US good, EU bad".
>"in the US sense" being the key word
There is no difference; free speech is free speech. That is your core issue in the argument.
> The restrictions on "free speech" that European countries implement, and which are increasing, would be unthinkable in the US because of their understanding of "free speech" and the legal protections in place.
Concrete examples please.
Please also explain how examples differ fundamentally from limits on speech that have historically been and are currently imposed in the US.
We haven’t learned anything. We’re already caught in a radicalization spiral between the far left and the far right, echoing 1930s Europe. AfD is currently the most popular party in Germany, France is stuck between the National Rally and the openly communist New Popular Front, and if you think they won’t gladly exploit existing restrictions on free speech once they take power, you’re in for a rude awakening.
You argue about the EU as if we were still living in 2005.
Regarding France, it is a big stretch to paint the National Rally as "far right" at this point. The label is mostly over-used to create tactical FUD against them.
Likewise I would not say that the New Popular Front is communist, either, although as a coalition it does include parties that are.
> Regarding France, it is a big stretch to paint the National Rally as "far right" at this point. The label is mostly over-used to create tactical FUD against them.
Their main talking points are against immigrants. They have extremely suspicious connections to the Kremlin (Russian bank loans that literally saved the party from bankruptcy, and resulting lack of condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine). They've been caught in corruption scandals. They are anti-EU (used to be for leaving the EU, but after the disaster of Brexit, toned it down to just renegotiating everything the EU is for).
There are traditionally right parties in France that are much more mellow than them. If LR and MODEM are right, what else would RN be other than far right? Yeah they're not as extreme as the lunatic born in Algeria who wants to expel anyone not born in France and who wants to ban non-French names, but they're still pretty extreme for the French political spectrum.
And yeah, the NFP aren't communist. Even though they have socialist and communist parties in their coalition, they're barely socialist.
None of what you mention or claim make them "far right".
"Euroscepticism" used to be quite significant in the "traditionally right" and Gaullist parties in France, like Thatcher was in the UK. And that was before the massive EU power grab of the recent years.
MODEM is centre (I mean it's Bayrou's party, so as centre as can be!). LR has effectively split with the 'right' now allied with RN and the 'left' allied with Macron. The LR now allied with the RN is not so different from Chirac's RPR when they won the general election in 1986. It it right, not far right but not centre right, either.
The original National Front (FN) was far right but it has shifted left and now RN is the de facto main party of the right. It is the largest party in Parliament and it is difficult to argue that 30-45% (depending on elections) of the French are "far right": They are not and the party isn't.
Actually, I would say that your comment illustrates was I mentioned in my previous comment. There has been, and still is, a rather insidious narrative in France and Europe that labels anyone against the current level of immigration and against the current EU trends as "far right" to shut them down. The only result is to make those parties get more and more votes as people's concerns are ignored.
> It is the largest party in Parliament and it difficult to argue that 30-45% (depending on elections) of the French are "far right": They are not.
Objectively, they are. And another 30% are for centre/centre-right/right.
> MODEM is centre (I mean it's Bayrou's party, so as centre as can be!
They are more and more leaning centre-right to right as can be seen by their policymaking (prioritising business over people and ecology, e.g. by refusing to even discuss reducing government aids/tax cuts towards businessess, but instead proposing to cut public holidays).
> There has been, and still is, a rather insidious narrative in France and Europe that labels anyone against the current level of immigration... as "far right" to shut them down
> The only result is to make those parties get more and more votes as people's concerns are ignored
It's funny, because the minister of the interior has been very strongly anti-immigration for quite some time now. And anti-immigration laws have been passed, with support for RN. How is that "ignoring people's concerns". And it's always funny how the people most voting for RN are either from disadvantaged post-industrial areas, where there are few migrants, or from rich posh areas, where there are few migrants (other than rich foreigners buying property). RN are just successfully blending the message and advertising migrants as the single big thing that will "solve" all issues, regardless of how factually incorrect that is. While stealing public money to enrich themselves.
Subjectively (and subjectively anything can be anything so...), but not objectively because, as said, there is nothing "far right" in their manifesto. Again, being anti mass migration and eurosceptic does not make a party far right.
> by refusing to even discuss reducing government aids...
I would argue that their refusal to really cut government spending in general makes them more left-leaning... So perhaps they are indeed centrists overall, then?
> It's funny, because the minister of the interior has been very strongly anti-immigration for quite some time now
Ah yes the nominally LR guy who's serving in Macron's government and who has objectively not done anything in practice (well he has no power to and has been in the job for less than a year...) although he is good at talking tough but that 'talk' is in fact mostly calling for existing laws to be enforced...
And so we get back on my previous claim that the narrative has been so skewed against any action on issues like immigration that he is described as "hardline"
> And it's always funny how the people most voting for RN ... where there are few migrants"
That's clearly not true since even the days of the FN. There are post-industrial areas that used to vote communist and switched to RN and there are areas with immigrants, historically the South East for instance. Now it is widespread, anyway: for instance in the 2024 general elections they came in first in the first round in 297 out of 577 (basically half) constituencies.
It's odd to see this refusal to face reality and to keep denying that immigration is an issue throughout Europe.
> I would argue that their refusal to really cut government spending in general makes them more left-leaning
That's a common misconception (that right leaning governments are somehow fiscally responsible. Some are, to a fault (austerity), but many are only paying lip service).
But in any case, the Bayrou government are trying to lower spending and raise revenue. Entirely with policies which are right-leaning, such as privatising government owned companies, and reducing the amount of public holidays, or lowering spending in the public sector. While the left leaning parties are crying to reduce government subsidies to businesses, which could be an easy budgetary win.
> Ah yes the nominally LR guy who's serving in Macron's government and who has objectively not done anything in practice (well he has no power to and has been in the job for less than a year...) although he is good at talking tough but that 'talk' is in fact mostly calling for existing laws to be enforced...
This is a concrete law voted in to curb immigration and make it easier to expel illegal immigrants or abusers of the asylum system. Yet, to people like you, and far right politicians, nothing is being done! We're being overran! People in power are ignoring the provlem!
> switched to RN and there are areas with immigrants, historically the South East for instance
Like Nice, where the immigrants are rich Russians, Brits and Arabs.
> It's odd to see this refusal to face reality and to keep denying that immigration is an issue throughout Europe.
It's extremely odd seeing how people focus so narrowly on this issue, and somehow think it's existential and nobody is doing anything about it and it's going to ruin the country... And have been saying the same thing for decades. Yet many things are being done, and it's obviously not that existential of a threat if the country is still there... And it's the main topic discussed all the time in political debate! And regardless of any measures, far right politicians just don't shut up about it.
It's just an easy distraction and an easy thing to point to as the source of all evils that can easily be fixed. And that is the hallmark of a modern European far right party, pointing the finger at the EU and migrants for any and all issues. Regardless of substance (like the fact that without migration, France would have had negative population growth for decades, which would have made the already difficult to handle public budget significantly worse).
I spent 10 days in Nice and the close suburbs in June, and have been there and in the area 5-6 different times over the past 10 years.
Nice attempt at invalidating my opinion, but you still haven't explained how a new law being passed to curb immigration is politicians ignoring "The Problem".
> I spent 10 days in Nice and the close suburbs in June
Considering that you claimed that in Nice "immigrants are rich Russians, Brits and Arabs", I must tell bluntly: Either this is not true or you didn't leave Le Negresco hotel.
Either way this perfectly illustrates my previous comment. Next time in Nice my humble suggestion is that you try to see the reality (Google "quartiers sensibles a Nice").
> you still haven't explained how a new law being passed to curb immigration
If you have lived in France long enough you would detect that this is the same as it always is: This is not a law to curb immigration and it won't curb immigration. This is a law for the show and to be able to claim that the government is tough on immigration. There are no "tough" measures against immigration.
Whatever the ECHR might say what I wrote in my previous comment is factual. In Europe "freedom of speech" comes with a long list of small print.
In fact, this is so embedded that the article of the ECHR you quote provides for restrictions and even states that they are "necessary": "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." QED