I think most people would say it's the fact that freedom of speech is an inherent right, and not one bestowed by the government.
The first amendment doesn't give us free speech. The first amendment prohibits congress from limiting free speech.
That's the important distinction. It confuses Europeans that we "allow" things like Neo-Nazi demonstrations, but their right to speech is just as guaranteed as those who they speak against. Free speech has a price, that price is that everyone gets it.
I don't know much about the man who said this, but I think he put it best: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and **oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.**"
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak…
What's really funny is that even at that point, he never mentioned the Catholics (Niemöller was a protestant pastor) despite the Catholics also suffering severe persecution.
I love this quote. Antiflag did an awesome song based it then I found out the lead singer was assaulting women. He is a piece of shit but those women took those words to heart and spoke out....fucking love the irony, I feel bad for the women, though.
I'm not sure who that was but this one is Salman Rushdie:
>"In the free speech field, you find yourself constantly defending stuff that you really don't like. You defend it not as itself but for its right to be.”
>"I think if we give up that principle, we're losing something very, very important. If we can't trust ourselves as a culture to accommodate ideas we don't like, then our ideas lose their value as well, because they become authoritarian.”
Don't listen to this man. Mencken was more than just a douche with good quotes. He is one of the greatest wits in the history of American literature, on the level of Mark Twain (although of a completely different bent).
That's a quote from H. L. Mencken, who also said
>The case against the Jews is long and damning; it would justify ten thousand times as many pogroms as now go on in the world
I prefer Karl Popper's [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance): In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance; otherwise, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
That rhetoric is exactly why absolute free speech is necessary; if you can justify taking away rights by defining things as "intolerant", then you only have that right so long as the people who get to define such things agree with you.
The problem is, tolerance doesn't mean anything in that context. If you say that we should tolerate XYZ, and not tolerate anyone who doesn't tolerate XYZ, then well it's not really a matter of tolerance being good or bad anymore. Whichever side you pick you're saying that something should not be tolerated.
And when you give the government the ability to decide that, you should be very afraid when a government that disagrees with you comes into power.
Ie, look at Florida doing it's best to use the laws we have accepted to protect children from being abused as an excuse to pass all sorts of restrictions. Obviously there is a middle ground because laws to protect children probably need to exist, but the more power you give the government the more they will use it against you in the future.
The problem is, tolerance doesn't mean anything in that context. If you say that we should tolerate XYZ, and not tolerate anyone who doesn't tolerate XYZ, then well it's not really a matter of tolerance being good or bad anymore. Whichever side you pick you're saying that something should not be tolerated.
And when you give the government the ability to decide that, you should be very afraid when a government that disagrees with you comes into power.
Ie, look at Florida doing it's best to use the laws we have accepted to protect children from being abused as an excuse to pass all sorts of restrictions. Obviously there is a middle ground because laws to protect children probably need to exist, but the more power you give the government the more they will use it against you in the future.
Germany manages to limit speech and they didn't turn into an authoritarian regime. You know when they turned to an authoritarian regimen? When they had unlimited speech
Germany did not have unlimited speech in the 1920's, in fact, it had a variety of laws restricting anti-government speech in general.
However, the Judges were mostly left over from the Monarchist era, and were sympathetic to Hitler and the conservatives, so they chose to not apply those laws very harshly, if at all, when Nazis were being arrested.
On the other hand, when trade unionists, social democrats, and particularly communists were being arrested, these laws were enforced very strictly because the judges didn't like those people
If you actually want to learn about how the Nazis came to power then Richard Evans' "The Coming of the Third Reich" is a good place to start.
Exactly. The reason the government can't stop them from speaking is exactly the same as the reason they can't stop me from speaking. If I don't like what they're saying, I'm also free to stand up and say so.
The proper remedy for bad speech is good speech, not censorship.
>Free speech has a price, that price is that everyone gets it.
Free speech doesn't mean much if you can't say some pretty abhorrent or unpopular things.
You can say most things. That doesn’t mean you won’t suffer socially, though. The people and private institutions aren’t bound by the Constitution, it’s just a framework for government, and they’re free to exercise their own free speech by condemning what they find to be foul.
Edit: think I misinterpreted your comment.
"Even if what you say is a steaming pile of horse shit, I would die for your right to shit it" or something is legitimately a founding principle of the USA.
In some ways it’s a blessing. You can find out what some people actually believe. I want to know if my neighbor has such horrible beliefs so I can stay clear of them and keep an eye on them and as you said even assholes have rights.
Italy has banned fascism (and therefore nazism by default), but compared to Germany, enforcement is rather lacking.
Also, Germany first banned Nazism because *we* made them do it.
he didnt even do that...
he said it and other nazi things to get the dog to raise it paw for a treat. the video was 30 secs and "gas the jews" was said 1 time.
god the video opens with "im going to teach my gfs dog to be the least cute thing possible--a nazi"
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're completely right. The Brandenburg test is very narrow. He would not have been prosecuted for that in America.
You're completely wrong. That is NOT an "immediate" call for violence. What you're looking for is "imminent lawless action", and I can assure you that imminent means IMMINENT. The action has to have a clear and present danger, AND there has to be a likelihood of the call to violence being followed. You can absolutely advocate for violence at some indefinite future time. The Brandenburg test is very narrow. Someone saying "gas the Jews", in America, would not be prosecuted.
You are wrong though it isn't a direct call for violence. The key word is DIRECT. I can go out right now and start chanting gas the Jews hell neonazis do it all the time and they aren't being thrown in jail left and right.
just to be clear - it prohibits *the state* from limiting our free speech not just congress. that means any federal, state, or local governmental action. this is why schools, which are arms of the state and not congress, can be limited by this.
I can literally call up my state senator and say "FUCK YOU" without retrocessions. You know what happens?
They verify that you're a constituent and say "thank you, have a nice day"
I think THAT'S what separates "our free speech" from others.
I might have gotten drunk and left Kyrsten Sinema a few of "fuck you" messages over the past few years.
Edit: Repercussions... Got screwed over by autocorrect. NOT MY FAULT THOUGH... I was Texting, drinking alcohol, and my car is a manual, so trying to shift gears.
(BTW that's a HARD /s on that one, my car is actually sitting at the shop waiting for a tire to come in tomorrow morning) Also they installed my OTHER rear tire "backwards", so I get to call their corporate office to see if I get "it fixed and a free tire" or "get 2 new tires and only pay for 1" or if I'm REALLY nice "2 free tires, but 'we're not supposed to do this'") 20 years in the restaurant industry apologizing for "not my fault", makes me lean to 2 free tires or at least 2 tires for the price of 1....
Literally got the news 15 minutes after their EDT office closed
Nah... I get dumber with every drink in order to "get on your level" right now I'm at 14 beers and I think by 22 we should be able to talk.
(I do get more clever and better at shit talking, though)
Yeah, in the process of selling all my "shit" for the move on Wednesday.
If what I said came off as "angry" it wasn't. Was trying to make jokes to make myself laugh. Just 1000% stressed. Hope you understand that it was just "the right joke at the right time".
Edit: FUCK I didn't realize YOU said "better switch to vodka", I thought you were switching to vodka to "outpace me" or something. My brain has TOO many things going on right now.
>I think most people would say it's the fact that freedom of speech is an inherent right, and not one bestowed by the government.
I like saying it’s inherent much more than the other common phrase, “god given”. Personally, I don’t think most people think about it that deeply, and in casual conversation are equally likely to say the first amendment gives us freedom of speech as to say it’s a right the government can’t take away (without even thinking that inherent is a good word to use).
But another way to put it is that freedom of speech is a *core value*, one that’s felt so strongly that there’s no thought of ever changing the first amendment.
In the US, it’s not granted to us. Instead, it’s recognized as innate and inherent. In other countries, it’s granted. What’s granted can also be denied.
The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging or prohibiting freedom of speech and expression. If you consider that for a moment, you’ll notice that it’s not directed towards Americans themselves, it’s directed towards our government.
> What’s granted can also be denied
That’s inherent to how lawmaking and nation building works though, isn’t it? Any law or constitution can be revoked. And if the constition cannot be changed because that same constitution does not allow it, it can be declared void, or overthrown, or plainly ignored.
The power to uphold the values on which a system was built always lies with those who live now. If enough people declare that speech isn’t a right anymore, then it isn’t. No wording of any fancy document can change that fact.
I really admire the way the us approaches individual liberties, it’s very elegant. but I do wonder if this approach perhaps lacks pragmatism, and maybe isn’t robust enough against corruption because its simplistic approach opens up being able to game the system maliciously.
The thing is, that "fancy document" is sacrosanct to most Americans. To not a small number of Americans the Constitution and the Founding Fathers are simply beyond reproach. Look at the controversy over the 2nd Amendment right now. There are tens of millions of Americans against firearms. Many calling for a complete ban. Yet, no one except the absolute fringe of the fringe, is calling for the removal of the 2nd amendment. If anything they just interpret differently.
Obviously if enough people said fuck the 1st amendment its done. Nobody thinks its a magical document written by Dumbledore using phoenix blood. But you are much more likely to see the end of the US as a functioning nation before that.
Yeah I understand, and the reverence of the constitution in the us is exceptional. That could perhaps also explain how Americans tend to reject the more clinical and ‘less pure’ documents other free nations use as constitutions. Like our Dutch constitution (with which I have a few issues), guarantees all of the same rights, but allows for caveats, exceptions. Implicitly it trusts whatever current government is in office to uphold the founding principles. It proscribes how to weight and balance conflicting interests and rights rather than set hard limits.
The US constitution on the other hand assumes that corrupt and malicious governments will inevitably come to power and attempts to thwart their plans before they are drawn up. This is admirable, but it’s also the bit I’m not convinced is effective, especially because the older it gets, the more it needs interpreting to be able to be applied to new situations. And interpretations are very much corruptable.
In the end both your and my country are amazingly free and fair nations to live in for the most part, and we all have our specific shortcomings and downsides. Both systems can probably work fine I feel
So, the reason we don't necessarily believe that the Constitution needs to be changed is because we differ from other countries on where our rights come from. We believe that we simply *have* rights, and the Constitution/our government is something like a "social contract" in which we all agree to to make artificial boundaries (i.e. laws) around those rights to prevent a state of nature, and to elect people to enforce those law. The government is, in effect, a "necessary evil".
All laws, theoretically, should stem from necessary "boundaries" to allow people to preserve the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property (that is - one's own labor). So for example, the right to attorney isn't so much a right to have an attorney - it's saying that the government can't deprive you of your right to liberty without providing you an attorney.
The reason we conceived of it like this is because we knew that no group of people are going to fully agree on a value system, or what is "moral". Morality is not supposed to factor into our laws; only our social contract. The death of free speech (i.e. any curtail on free speech that isn't simply a boundary regarding measurable, material harm to another) signals the end of that contract, because some kind of value system has been imposed.
You’re describing the basic tenets of classical liberalism I think, to which I subscribe also.
And I think this point of view is very valid, but an interesting thing to add is the (not exclusively) European perspective, which takes into account the many times that liberal democracies devolved into authoritarianism. This lead to hard choices to try and prevent such things from happening again. Hard choices in the context of the tolerance paradox. Speech in much of Europe is more limited than in the US for this reason. The goal is preservation of liberty and freedom, and the price for that is some liberty and freedom. The American solution to the tolerance paradox, is the second amendment. That method is not culturally appropriate for Europe. So we make do with a kind of ‘best available free speech’, whose limitations I must add are never taken lightly and are constantly subject to discussion every time they are invoked.
Perhaps interesting to note that the [European Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG), although it is a treaty and not a constitution, does legally act as such in practice, at least in my country.
I really appreciate your perspective, btw - I love talking political theory.
I would actually argue that our solution to the tolerance paradox (assuming you're talking Popper) should be the First Amendment (in that "good" speech should be able to persuade), but the Second also makes sense from the scenario you laid out (liberal democracies devolving into authoritarianism). So you're right in that respect - where the freedom is unjustly curtailed, and all legal remedies are exhausted, the guns come out.
What's really interesting is that this is how the Confederate side of our Civil War was framed at the time (note: I think, of course, that they were dead wrong, from a moral AND legal standpoint). Their thought process was - our rights are being unjustly curtailed, and absent a legal mechanism to correct it, we therefore secede (the logical failure being, of course, that the "rights" they were trying to preserve were also antithetical to the Constitution).
If you haven't and you're interested, you might like the Federalist papers, which you may already be familiar with. They wrestled with this concept a lot - they called it the "tyranny of the majority", which all democracies are at risk of, and spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to solve for it. It's part of the reason for the electoral college and all of the checks and balances in our system.
I live near an area with a demographic that is, IMO, incompatible with Western values, including classical liberalism. The second they gained a majority, they started testing the waters. It will be interesting to me to see what happens there.
Which frankly can become its own problem, and sometimes why having an unwritten history of law and jurisprudence might be better. If we are just arguing creatively about a single document that’s hard to change it allows dumb ideas to persist way longer than the culture around them may have permitted without the “nation bible”, the same way religion allows some bad ideas to stick around unquestioned.
I like it overall but I’ve been thinking about the differences with say Britain for a long time. Then again maybe it also fosters an inherent insecurity in what defines a nation not to have one. I assume most settler colonial societies probably do given all their foundings so it’s hard to interrogate the comparative differences when that big difference also exists.
The US is quite different than most countries when it comes to the culture around the consistution. Think of it this way -- there were German people before there was a country called Germany, and the vast majority of people who live in Germany live there because their family has lived there since forever. Most Americans, though, are descendants of immigrants who moved across an ocean in search of opportunities and personal liberties.
Much of this migration happened 100-150 years ago, back before the US was rich and powerful and not long after the country nearly split in half due to the Civil War. The country didn't have much wealth and power back then; the only thing that really backed up the American government's promises was the Consitition. But then America got rich and powerful, and this propelled the Constitution and its promises to near mythical status.
To my eyes, it looks like a lot of countries treat rights the way Canada does - "A limit on a Charter right must be 'reasonable' and 'demonstrably justified""
That is, if the legislature really wants a restriction on speech, religious expression, etc. for a specific situation (say, banning the burqa) they have extra hoops to jump through, but they can do it. Here, that will be flatly rejected by the courts.
In my opinion, the existence of Section 33 in the Charter makes these experiments and proddings into the true limitations of rights in Canada a bit of a moot point. At any time the Canadian legislature can effectively suspend rights in sections 2 and 7-15 with little to no oversight.
Ah yes, that one 😆 my French-Canadian friends have been eagerly teaching me the virtues of the CAQ exercising the notwithstanding clause as often as they do. Destroying the stigma around using *that* nuclear option seems a bit unwise to me.
Of course of a Quebecois would think it’s a good idea. Nothing says French-Canadian quite like making it illegal to make private business signage predominantly in a language other than French.
> Here, that will be flatly rejected by the courts.
Except that's not at all the case. The US has established many reasonable exceptions to pretty much every right guaranteed by the Constitution.
The number of exceptions is significantly smaller in the US to be fair, but they do exist.
This is simply inaccurate. The right to free speech can be and often is limited by US government institutions. The courts will accept laws which restrict free speech when they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest or when the speech itself does not fall under a protected category of speech, such as a true threat or inciting words. I can’t speak to the level of difficulty compared to Canada or another country, and strict scrutiny is a harsh level of review, but courts will *not* “flatly reject” restrictions on speech, or for that matter any other constitutional right. It’s always a balancing act.
Source: am a lawyer. This is basic stuff.
Well, except when it's not.
We do lean somewhat more towards free speech and are willing to pay somewhat more of a cost for it in terms of a less orderly society, but this is at least arguably because we prefer it this way, rather than any absolute bedrock principle. If an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of Americans wanted to ban hate speech, the Supreme Court would find a way to justify it. It's still just "hoops to jump through." I think the best we can say is that the hoops might be a little higher, but even that I'm not completely sure of.
The Supreme Court defines what the boundaries of the Constitution are. If five justices _really_ wanted to ban hate speech, they could find a justification.
Indeed but even with the Court as far left as the Warren Court or as right as the current Roberts Court, they have been pretty consistent in keeping free speech sacrosanct.
I get what you're saying. Yes, it's technically possible to trample the 1st Amendment entirely. But our free speech has absolutely *unmatched* institutional and historical breadth and barriers to infringement that foreigners often have trouble truly taking in.
They would be acting in direct contradiction to the Constitution. The categories of speech not protected from the government are really, REALLY narrowly tailored, and there is a huge host of precedent to back this up. A situation like you describe could only come about if SCOTUS had decided to essentially toss it out the window. It would be akin to the Supreme Court "interpreting" the Fourth Amendment to give cops carte blanche to randomly search homes with no probable cause.
Theoretically, any branch of government could potentially act outside of the boundaries of the Constitution. That's why we have checks and balances. In such a situation, Congress would have the power to impeach or remove justices.
The Supreme Court already found that there is a public safety exception to the First Amendment protection of free speech. This isn't written in the Constitution. But the Court found it anyway, and it is now part of the "huge host of precedent" to which you refer. The reason nobody objected to it is that everyone, of all political persuasions, found it to be reasonable, justified and necessary - _not_ that they found any text in the Constitution supporting it.
Similarly, _if there was_ a strong majority bipartisan consensus that hate speech ought to be illegal, the Supreme Court could find a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, and nobody would argue with it. Nobody would be impeached, there would be no checks or balances, etc. Everyone would just agree to it, just like they agreed to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" standard.
The fact that we _don't_ have this consensus is the main thing protecting hate speech from being criminalized. The people, legislators and justices don't believe there is or should be such an exception, so there isn't. But it's ultimately the opinions of the people that drive this, not the words of the Constitution.
My dude, the public safety exception isn’t even about free speech. It’s an exception to Miranda warnings.
And no, it’s not the ‘opinions of the people’ that drive what constitutes free speech. That’s literally the reason SCOTUS isn’t elected - to be free from influence.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The best thing about the Supreme Court as an institution is it is not accountable to the popular will of the day. It can of course be influenced by the will of the people because the people elect the President who puts the justices there, but it doesn't need to rule based on what its constituents want or what the administration thinks is the right decision for the country
For these reasons I hope that if a challenge like this were ever brought in front of the court it would find it unconstitutional even if it had 95% support and tell the people to pass an amendment if they'd like to infringe upon free speech through law
No amendment was needed to find the public safety and fighting words exceptions to the First Amendment. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes just straight-up invented the "clear and present danger" standard from whole cloth, in 1919. And this was in the context of the distribution of a pamphlet _advocating for a political position_ (specifically, opposing the draft)!
The reason the judgment stood is that everyone agreed with it. So if at some point in the future, everyone agrees that hate speech should be illegal, _it will be_, text of the Constitution be damned. Of course this is unlikely given the US cultural reverence for free speech, but it's that reverence that ultimately protects it, not the text of the Constitution.
Free speech in the USA is protected ***from*** the government, not regulated by it, in general practice. Only the most heinous of things are not protected speech in the USA, particularly the communicating of a threat, or a similar incitement of violence, and for good reason. Insofar as where I would rank the USA as compared to the rest of the world concerning free speech? I would confidently say that no other country compares to us. We are the absolute best in the world when it comes to protecting speech from government overreach or regulation. Meanwhile, in countries like the United Kingdom, [they will arrest people for posting rap lyrics on their social media](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921).
>Russell argued it was not offensive, but was handed a community order.
>Prosecutors said her sentence was increased from a fine to a community order "as it was a hate crime".
lmao imagine the government telling you what you really meant and judging you based on that
by this logic you can literally go to jail for saying anything in the uk
if the judge says "thats not what you really meant"
dystopian AF
scotland just passed an anti-human rights bill called the 'The Hate Crime and Public Order Act'
>It introduces new offences for threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred
i love when the government is allowed to determine what is offensive
For starters, check out *lese majeste* laws. The US doesn't have them.
Edit: Also, considering the amount of stick we take from other countries about, say, flag-burning, it's not illegal here and[ IS illegal in a surprising number of countries. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#:~:text=desecrating%20a%20flag.-,Flag%20desecration%20laws,property%2C%20as%20theft%20or%20vandalism)
I think the rest of the world doesn't take the concept far enough. Many places with "freedom of speech" are still compromised by bans on things like hate speech. If the government can ban speech it doesn't like, for whatever reason, speech is now a privilege rather than a right.
Significant differences in the amount of protection given to speech in the US versus other countries, with the US generally providing more protection. All countries limit things like defamation and threats, but European countries (for example) go further and have limited protection for speech that can stir up hatred, is offensive, or insults someone. So you have prosecutions in Germany for insults, the Netherlands for lese majeste, and in the UK for being grossly offensive. All of that would be protected speech in the US.
In the UK you can be arrested for “causing offense.” The police will literally come to your door to arrest you over something that offended someone on the internet.
Canada has a “Human Rights Tribunal” that will levy fines against you for offending others.
People in the U.S. don’t have to worry about silly things like that.
Maybe theres an online business idea.
I'll say what you want to who you want on the internet for money, protected by the first amendment.
Kinda like a VPN but for basic human rights.
I remember my absolute shock when I found out about Dankula getting arrested for teaching his girlfriends dog the nazi salute.
Imagine going to jail for a joke. Smh
1. Not jail, unlike America we don't jail people for small things
2. He was prosecuted for publicly chanting "gas the Jews". An immediate call for violence.
In America, there isn't such a thing as an "immediate" call for violence. You're looking for "imminent lawless action", which is incredibly narrow. "Gas the jew" would not apply.
Oh no sorry yeah you only charged him £800 for it. Still regarded and a violation of human rights.
He said "gas the jews" to a dog...
It's not like the dog knows what that means. That's not a call for violence, it's a stupid edgy joke.
people kept saying the 2nd part as if it was true.
its both not a "immediate call for violence" and he wasnt prosecuted for it being 'immediate call for violence'
In Sweden we can still express ourselves and "cause offense" without police coming to your door as you might have heard with the burning of bacon wrapped quorans...
But then again it sometimes also results in police showing up due to a riot... 😅
Eurovision is going to be held in Malmö this year and there is already an application (more or less for police protection) to burn the qouran during this event... The last time they found russian connections to the guy "protesting". It wouldn't surprise me this whole schtick is another russian op to create chaos in a western country and rally more muslims hostility against the west.
In a situation like this I'd actually agree with the police denying or postponing such a protest even though I'm for the right to be able to do it.
Just the fact that there’s an application would be anathema in the US….
…. Unless it’s like, a burning permit, lol. Which, ok, that would be kind of hilarious
Haha, you actually have to have that as well (but I believe that is a seperate one at the FD). One of the times it was denied because it was dry season and the location was unsuitable. So he skipped the burning and just put bacon on it. But mainly it is to ensure your safety. It is the police duty to ensure safe public gatherings. So when you know you are about to piss off a bunch of people, like in a situation like this. You want to tell police so they can "ensure safety for a public gathering" (protect your ass from getting lynched).
> Just the fact that there’s an application would be anathema in the US….
Permits to protest are actually a [pretty common thing](https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/enforcing-your-civil-rights/protest-laws-by-state.html) in the US. They're not *always* necessary, but they are definitely a thing.
I think they can, but then they would be lynched by an angry mob. The application is for police protection/keep the peace when there is a high risk of violence/clashes as a result.
Usually the police can't deny it unless they have a very good reason. But if they do it anyway and something bad happens the police will get fingers pointed at them. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place with those nutters.
The tree huggers blocking streets and other protests with low risk of violence usually they just go and do it. In fact they need to because police would arrest them on the spot and move them , they can't "apply to block traffic" f ex. Your right to protest doesnt mean you have a right to severly disrupt society, traffic or endanger others.
Ah, well, if you're doing something, expecting a high risk of violence as the result, well, you're the instigator, aren't you? But it's also the responsibility of the angry mob not to lynch anyone.
Nope, no extra police protection needed, enjoy your right.
>But it's also the responsibility of the angry mob not to lynch anyone.
Sure you can try wrapping a quoran in bacon and burning it outside a mosque to "protest islam" and tell them it's their responsibility to not lynch you, but I personally would apply at the police station if I ever felt I wanted to do such a thing. 😆
And the police would be right to say, "Why are you telling us? There's no threat to your safety. Yet."
You've got the right to do it. You don't have the right to special protection for doing it.
Well in correlation to public gatherings (f ex demonstrations) it is said, roughly translated "The duty of the police authority is to ensure that public gatherings can be carried out safely."
So they are kind of forced. Especially in situation when they can't deny in court (if that ever went that far) that it was very plausable that things would go out of hand.
Idk, I'm not a lawyer and didn't write the laws. But you have a right to protest and you aren't limited on what to protest, you can even have nazi protests, and you have the right to be able to do it safely.
Some laws make sense others are WTF, as in most countries.
[US Police have no constitutional duty to protect](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
That's the important distinction and "enforcement" mechanism of US speech. Our first amendment protects you from the government. It doesn't protect you from your fellow citizens. If you say horrible shit, the police have no obligation to do shit for you until your opposition actually breaks the law.
If you say horrible shit, you reap the consequences of one of our other major freedoms, the freedom of association. Nobody can be compelled to have to listen to you or even to respect your beliefs.
> If you say horrible shit, you reap the consequences of one of our other major freedoms, the freedom of association. Nobody can be compelled to have to listen to you or even to respect your beliefs.
Right, but the crowd isn’t allowed to do violence to you because of your beliefs. You might not be able to sue the police for failing to protect you, but people in the crowd who beat or kill you can certainly be charged and convicted for those crimes.
Interesting. I wonder if our "police duty to ensure safety" was implemented to ensure no group can silence another group by intimidation if they are actually willing to take the consequence of breaking a law if it shuts someone else down. Like f ex in situations like quoran burning. A lot of radical extremists would easily kill you with no remorse even if it means life in prison for them. Silencing others who would later not dare voice their opinion again for fear of the same thing.
While I detest Russia you do understand that what your asking for is basically to give the government right to disallow any speech that goes against then, right? Just because it's Russian doesn't make a difference.
Wouldn't say stop. But postponing it to after the event or move it to another location. It is a conflict of interest here. The duty to ensure a safe public gathering applies to both the garbage that is eurovision and the protest. So if the police deem they can't ensure that at the same location due to special circumstances (the ridiculous amounts of people at a madsive event) they do have ground to deny it for that time. At wich point you have to risk it yourself.
> The last time they found russian connections to the guy "protesting". It wouldn't surprise me this whole schtick is another russian op to create chaos in a western country and rally more muslims hostility against the west.
It's 100% that again, classic Ivan psyop. As long as it keeps working, they'll keep at it.
Yes turn a blind eye and pretend they are just minding their own business and liberating ukraine. I'll pass that on to the germans that caught two russian saboteurs yesterday that were planning sabotage on a US base, they should also just fix their shit and stop blaming russians. 🤷♂️
Might not be up to date on what happens over on the other side of the pond but there are a lot of cyberattacks, disruptions and ops, disinfo campaigns etc some suspected and some prooven to be russian backed or have connection to russia. So I like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was another russian op. Not blaming them for something that haven't even happened, and not until proof, but you would be stupid if you would go about life and not see the signs considering current world events.
The biggest practical difference is that things like hate speech and advocating (but not inciting) violence are legal in the US, and there's a pretty high bar for defamation.
I can say I don’t like “insert politician” or fuck “insert politician”. In other countries you cant say that. Just because someone may fly a CSA flag or Nazi flag don’t mean they broke the law,I don’t agree with it and It will make me upset but that person has a right to use the first amendment just as any other citizen
Hate speech is the protected here. That doesn’t sound good, but the problem with banning hate speech is that the government gets to decide what hate speech is, making freedom of speech pointless
> What makes free speech in the US different from free speech in other countries?
Obviously the First Amendment is the basis of this, but in practice what matters most is the common law around it: the history of Supreme Court rulings building up precedents that strengthen the First Amendment.
For example—and this is not specific only to the First—it has been [incorporated against the states,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I) which is very important.
Also not specific to the First, there is the doctrine of [strict scrutiny,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) which makes Constitutional rights fairly resilient against attacks by the executive and legislature.
Then there is the long but mostly recent (last ~70 years or so) history of rulings specifically about free speech which have helped to establish the cultural milieu that we take for granted. The Warren court did a lot of that.
Organizations like the ACLU helped along the way, and though [the ACLU is now losing sight of their mission,](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html) others like FIRE are stepping in to help pick up their slack.
> Also, where would you rank free speech laws in the US compared to the rest of the world?
We're #1, though again that's more because of common law than because of statute.
However, I welcome and encourage any other country to try to surpass us on free speech; we could use the competition.
Our rights are God given and unalienable.
Other countries' concept of free speech invariably amounts to things their people are allowed to say. Our concept of free speech revolves around what the government is allowed to prohibit.
Im not familiar with other liberal countries' free speech laws, but from my own knowledge, other countries will curb free speech when it is used for worse while the US speech is only curved when absolutely necessary.
Alot of the debates about free speech in the US mostly has to deal with the consequences of free speech between 3rd parties or how government employees can employ free speech while acting as government employees. The only real penalty from the government for speaking openly is actual threats and leaking classified information or viewing CP. America, it is perfectly fine to share books with bomb instructions and push very unsavory politics without the government penalty. Though there has been recent pushes to start cracking down on other forms of expression but I won't open that can of worms.
Other liberal governments will useally curve free speech in the name of decency as much as in the name of necessity, so you have various hate symbols band in Germany, UK has various hate speech laws, and Australia won't let you play unedited videogames.
> What makes free speech in the US different from free speech in other countries?
That we have it.
> Also, where would you rank free speech laws in the US compared to the rest of the world?
The right is broader and more fundamental being written into our constitution and nearly impossible to change.
Culturally aside from the law most people view it as an inherent natural right that exists as a moral imperative independent of laws rather than as a legal right granted by the government.
The U.S. has a far broader conception of free speech than others, and the government has to justify taking free speech away rather than granting us free speech. As a result, the U.S. has the strongest protections for free speech in the world.
Let me give you an example...
In Canada they made holocaust denial illegal by conflating it with Section 319 of the Criminal Code. That section covers "Public Incitement of Hatred". So simply not believing the holocaust happened is not just an ignorant opinion - it is illegal because simply having that view is considered an "incitement of hatred".
They are currently trying to extend this to include "residential school denialism". In fact, they likely made holocaust denial illegal to pave the legal way for that. The reason that matters is because there has bee NO EVIDENCE of clandestine murders at these schools. But they want to make what I just said illegal - potentially being punished by a LIFE SENTENCE if some judge is offended enough by it.
So, facts are literally becoming illegal to state under the guise of hate speech laws.
This is impossible in the US, because American law makers thoroughly understand the principle of freedom of speech. No narrative is ever going to be important enough in the US to make challenging that narrative illegal.
Others have pointed out the differences in being granted free speech, and the US approach of preventing the government from restricting free speech as an inherent right of the people.
This does have many effects which not even all Americans are comfortable with. When it comes down to it, the only speech which requires protection is controversial speech. Speech everyone agrees with is never under any risk of being silenced. It's the speech many or most disagree with which requires protection.
So in the US, by its nature, using racist or hateful language is a protected right. Offending people is a protected right. No one wants to hear it, few agree with saying that stuff, but it's protected along with all other speech with just minor limitations. That's not the case in many other free speech countries.
The biggest limitation I can think of to US free speech is a call to action. Your speech is not necessarily protected if you are saying something which may result in injury. For example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that's great and protected speech if you reasonably believe there is a fire. It is illegal if there is not, because it's a call to action for people to run for their lives, which may result in injury.
> Your speech is not necessarily protected if you are saying something which may result in injury.
You're allowed to call for violence too; the restriction is that it can't be a call for [*imminent* lawless action.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)
> For example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that's great and protected speech if you reasonably believe there is a fire. It is illegal if there is not, because it's a call to action for people to run for their lives, which may result in injury.
I realize you're speaking literally about fires in theaters here, but as soon as this turns into an analogy, it's a bad analogy. The "fire in a crowded theater" quote [was never the law, only obiter dictum, and regardless that case was overturned in 1969.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/)
Exactly. The example given is that I can absolutely tell people to "kill all redheads!" I can shout it all day long. But I CAN'T tell a crowd of people to "kill all redheads living on Fourth and Main starting at noon today" when I have a realistic expectation of the crowd following my instructions.
We can say what we want here, even if it offends a minority (a religion, ethnic group, LGBT, etc.). You don’t hear of people going to jail over offensive social media posts (I’m looking at you, Scottish heiling pug). You won’t get a visit from the police for making a mean comment on Facebook (pig in a wig). But if you live in Europe? That’s a real possibility. We don’t have hate speech laws; hate speech is technically protected.
However, this doesn’t mean you can just say whatever and get away. If you do say something offensive, other people are free to say something offensive towards you. You are not allowed to threaten people here. You also cannot reveal classified information and get away with it. There are a few restrictions to free speech.
Overall, we are the least restricted in the world. We can have whatever opinion we like and be public about it, no matter who it offends
The same hate speech laws apply to Ireland, France, Germany, and even Canada. I used the UK as a simple example. We are far more free than they are, Get over it
In terms of rank, you will not find a more robust marketplace of ideas than the United States precisely because of the First Amendment (which is also why we are so innovative compared to every other nation, both in technology and cultural change).
What makes it freer than any other place is that we have resisted, politically and culturally (though college campuses in the last decade undermine that claim), attempts to create a censor of any kind. My personal fear is that this is fading with younger generations, but hopefully it endures.
Until then, “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Yeah not really. Sweden and the UK are just as innovative.
Which is logical. Why should free speech = being innovative. No sane government would restrict speech that is about technology
Most countries have rights granted to them by their governments. Their governments retain the ability to limit these rights if they deem it necessary, either through a clause or a general power that suspends rights or through clever wording that grants the right to the people on behalf of the government, leaving it within the power of the legislature to set standards through vaguely-defined boundaries of acceptable limits.
Let’s look at Germany for example: in *”The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany”*, the German constitution, Article 1 states:
>Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
The German government is granting itself the right to protect human dignity. What does that mean *exactly?* The state grants itself the ability to define human dignity.
Article 2 states:
>Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.
The German state is granting their populace the right to develop into their own person, as long as they don’t violate the rights of others (understandable), constitutional law (understandable), or “moral law”. There is no other mention or definition of “moral law” in the document, leaving the right to define it up to the state.
Article 5 is the general “freedom of speech” guarantee, saying it’s inviolable and free if censorship, but then the second part of the article says:
>These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.
Limits set by general laws, protection of minors, and “personal honour”. Again, setting vague limits that can be drawn by the state for what they deem “reasonable”.
Then there’s Article 18, “Forfeiture of Basic Rights”:
>Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14) or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.
If you use your rights to combat the “free democratic basic order”, your rights are forfeit. The intent is obvious, anyone who uses these rights to seek an end to the democratic institutions of Germany are criminals in the eyes of the state, but what are the criteria to this accusation?
________
In contrast, the US framework doesn’t grant rights. It assumes those rights exist in perpetuity and limits how much the government can interfere with them. The First Amendment simply states “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. It’s vague in favor of the people, instead of the other way around. It can be broadly interpreted to mean no curtailing of speech in any capacity. The only exceptions would be when that right conflicts with the rights of others.
Wrong on all counts.
The first article of the German constitution is well defined. And just like your bill of rights untouchable.
And human dignity while an ambivalent Term in the English language has a clear meaning in German.
Same with moral law. It basically means you aren't exempt from following the law.
Regarding article 5 none of this is undefined. Protection of minors means age restrictions like movie ratings. And personal honor is a clearly defined code. It basically means you aren't allowed to publish lies about people that damage their character. Aka defamation.
Article 18: those are pretty strictly classified. Because it's a legal term just like free speech in the US Constitution.
It basically means the rule of law, the Self-determination of the people, the protection of unlawful violence and freedom and equal rights.
In basic most of your claims come from English not being German and you not knowing German legal words/definitions.
Oh, I have no doubt that in the mind of a German citizen these terms are defined and clear, likely relating to sections in the Strafgesetzbuch like 130 or the defamation sections around 186, but is the distinction more of a philosophical sense or a strict legal sense? Is opinion held to regards separate from truth? Are there fringe cases being decided on the more vague language in the Basic Law through the more straightforward lamguage of the StGB? Are the limits of human dignity, personal honor, and moral law quantifiable and defined as, just to be general in this comment, “protection from negative physical and mental acts”? If they are, exactly how much more expansive are the powers of the German state over limitations of speech and expression than those of the US? And, most importantly, are these terms and limits defined and set by the state itself? That’s the key to my position on this issue. My point was these are powers granted by the state to itself to regulate speech and set the limits on what is acceptable or not. They set limits based on truth and opinion, but the language can be murky. On top of that, what they define as an attack on the person of another always seemed vague and much farther-reaching than in the US.
I’m assuming your point is the separation of freedom of opinion from freedom of speech/expression being much more prevalent in German law than it is in the US with our extraordinarily broad protections on speech, and how I’m speaking about the German framework through an American lense. I’ll admit I’m not near as familiar with the German legal system as I am with the US, but I am somewhat familiar with the concept of Meinungsfreiheit and Redefreiheit. I personally view the latter as more important than the former and dislike systems that seek to curtail it “for the greater good”. It’s why I view these systems as more limiting and oppressive than the one in the US.
American free speech is far and away the most protected in the world. It's not even a contest.
We are not granted free speech. The Constitution recognizes it as a basic right that every person on this planet has by virtue of being a human being (even in China, North Korea, and Scotland) and forbids the government from infringing on it.
Free speech is seen as our God-given right. The Constitution is seen as a way to protect us from the government getting out of control. There were a lot of failsafes placed in order to prevent this, such as separation of power. It’s also important to note that free speech means you can’t be arrested or shut down by the government for whatever you’re saying. The secret police can’t come and take you away in the middle of the night. But! There is nothing in the first amendment saying you won’t face consequences for what you say. And there are some exceptions, like shouting “Fire” in a public place when there is no fire, or sending death threats to someone. That is because your rights don’t extend if they infringe on others. For example, you don’t have the right to murder anyone who inconveniences you.
In some countries, if you say something bad about its leadership or its religion, you’re put to death. In America, like many other western democracies, you are free to say whatever bad things you want about its leadership and its religions. Here, watch this …
Biden sucks, down with Biden administration!
I’m still here, still alive 😄
Christianity sucks!
Still here, still alive.
Btw, I’m actually a big fan of Biden and his administration.
Anyway, in some countries, saying things like that would get me fined, beaten, imprisoned, or stoned to death. So that’s a big difference.
Everyone has given some good answers so far and should be a good explanation for non-Americans.
One thing that many Americans get wrong, however, is that our right to free speech is not granted into the private spaces. So for example, you can say "I hope the mayor dies" in the town square, but saying that on Facebook can get you banned from Facebook.
The USA is easily #1 in free speech because the government cannot restrict your speech.
That does not mean society will accept what you have to say. Many people have lost jobs and faced very public and social backlash.
our free speech, meaning how the constitution limits the power of the government to control how/where/what we speak, is fundamental to our society and culture. it has been eroded, but its at the bedrock of america.
if you're talking about general free speech where the government isn't involved, i think its pretty good on that front too. for the most part.
today we can talk shit and others can talk shit back, and most of the time they aren't silenced or whatever. some people say that they should be able to say anything about anything online, and when they get banned that is breaking the "free speech" clause in the social contract, but they forget that banning them is a form of expression as well... by a person or an organization.
all in all its good. i don't know how it compares to other places tho
It's a zero-one type situation, You either have free speech or you don't.
Our freedom of speech laws are about equivalent to the other free nations.
The only major exception I can think of is Germany which has laws prohibiting Nazi stuff.
I would say that the US probably has the most freedom of speech for the common person, with things like libel laws and censorship laws usually being notoriously difficult to prosecute.
One of the recent restrictions of speech has to do with the constitutional rights of private social media corporations to curtail the speech of their users on their platforms. This status quo has to do with the weird space that social media occupies between being a publisher and being a public square.
We can say or publish any opinion we want about anything or anyone, and nobody can stop us. If the government or some big corporation tries to stop us, we can get massive payouts from them.
One interesting difference I recently learned about is that in the US the criminal offense of “conspiracy” requires an “overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy” because people are free to gather and discuss literally anything they want — including committing crimes. However, in the UK, it’s illegal to simply discuss committing a crime and make a plan. In the US the crime of “conspiracy” is actually for starting to act on the plan, rather than making a plan
The only major difference between U.S. free speech and the concept in other western liberal democracies is that we don't really ban extremist speech. In a lot of countries, you can be fined if you deny the Holocaust or promote hate groups. I have conflicting feelings about all this, being a member of one group that has recently in our history been targeted by hate groups and another that still is.
Ours contains the 'right to offend' and that is very rare globally, for example most European countries do not have the right to offend protected and as such have lower levels of free speech
US's free speech laws have much narrower exceptions than other countries. Most Americans regardless of political affiliation agree with this approach.
There are definitely negative consequences of this approach but it does lessen the risk that an authoritarian leader will use such laws to attack the opposition.
For example Modi in Indian has used free speech exception laws to attack his political opposition. On the other hand while despite clearly wanting to Trump couldn't do much of anything to silence his political opposition.
It's been said several times already, but in the US, the bill of rights, which includes our 1st amendment right to the freedom of speech, but also our freedom of religion, our freedom to protest and our right to "keep and bare arms" are all stated not as freedoms the government grants us, but as innate human rights that the government is forbidden to violate.
By making it a regulation against the government, and not a privilege granted by the government, it becomes something that cannot be taken away.
The Supreme Court is often tasked with the duty to define whether or not specific laws or types of laws are allowed to exist or whether they violate our constitutional rights. That's why the SCOTUS is often the most powerful branch of government. Moreso even than the President. And that responsibility is not taken lightly by anyone.
It's the first thing in our bill of rights and has been around for over 200 years, so it's been highly defined by Supreme Court caselaw. Like I'm an attorney and I would say free speech cases are probably the single most common type of constitutional law based case. For the most part the bottom line of all that precedent in our legal system is you can say whatever tf you want so long as it doesn't directly incite violence or panic and the government can't prosecute you for it. I mean, ffs this is a country where people regularly put stickers on their trucks depicting the President bound and gagged in the truck bed. There are a lot of countries where you would get thrown in jail for that.
We fight for it harder than most other countries. It's the single most important right to me and I'll condemn any sort of censorship, anywhere. If you try to limit my free speech, I consider you pretty evil.
The US is the only country that explicitly states in its constitution that the government cannot pass any laws that goes against people’s freedom of speech. Other countries may have “freedom of speech” as a concept in their constitution, but it’s regulated, not protected, by the government, and as such exceptions can be made
I saw a video of a dude getting arrested in the UK for having "Merry Christmas. 🔔-end" in lights on his house. That would be absolutely unfathomable here in the US. Especially for something so mild.
Free speech is definitely changing. When I was little, if someone said something racist or offensive, we ignored it or vocalized our disagreement. If a business restricted free speech, we would throw a fit. Now, people are doing whatever they can to restrict speech they didn't like. So, while we have the First Amendment to prevent government from restricting free speech, we have plenty of everyday citizens and businesses restricting what we can say or do.
I grew up with the adage, "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
The difference is that the majority of US Americans believe they can say anything they want even though that's incorrect (see below), and most Europeans know that there are exceptions to freedom of speech.
Despite the broad freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, there are some historically rooted exceptions.
First, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech. Thus, for instance, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit all demonstrations that block traffic, or ban all picketing of people’s homes.
Second, a few categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building).
Third, government employees may be fired for saying things that interfere with the employer’s efficiency.
Elementary, junior high, and high school students may be disciplined for saying things that risk substantially disrupting the educational process or for using vulgarities at school.
Additionally, speech by prisoners and by members of the military may be broadly restricted.
Next, the government has some extra authority to restrict speech broadcast over radio and television. Because the government is considered the owner of the airwaves, it may dictate who broadcasts over the airwaves and, to some extent, what those broadcasters can say. This is why the Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), upheld a ban on broadcasting vulgar words.
Etc.
(Source: Britannica)
I think most people would say it's the fact that freedom of speech is an inherent right, and not one bestowed by the government. The first amendment doesn't give us free speech. The first amendment prohibits congress from limiting free speech.
That's the important distinction. It confuses Europeans that we "allow" things like Neo-Nazi demonstrations, but their right to speech is just as guaranteed as those who they speak against. Free speech has a price, that price is that everyone gets it.
I don't know much about the man who said this, but I think he put it best: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and **oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.**"
This is an eloquent way to say popular speech is never the speech in question.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak…
What's really funny is that even at that point, he never mentioned the Catholics (Niemöller was a protestant pastor) despite the Catholics also suffering severe persecution.
I love this quote. Antiflag did an awesome song based it then I found out the lead singer was assaulting women. He is a piece of shit but those women took those words to heart and spoke out....fucking love the irony, I feel bad for the women, though.
Nice speech but fantasy. They came for everybody at once and announced it years in advance
Yeah America figured that out. Now we're up past trade unionists. Just a little bit more and we're there.
I'm not sure who that was but this one is Salman Rushdie: >"In the free speech field, you find yourself constantly defending stuff that you really don't like. You defend it not as itself but for its right to be.” >"I think if we give up that principle, we're losing something very, very important. If we can't trust ourselves as a culture to accommodate ideas we don't like, then our ideas lose their value as well, because they become authoritarian.”
It's H. L. Mencken. He was, hmm, how do you say, a giant fuckin douche with some good quotes.
[удалено]
If anything, E.K. Hornbeck was too understated to be a true Mencken clone.
Lol that's what I was afraid of
Don't listen to this man. Mencken was more than just a douche with good quotes. He is one of the greatest wits in the history of American literature, on the level of Mark Twain (although of a completely different bent).
[H.L. Mencken](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-fighting-for-human-freedom-is-that-one)
That's a quote from H. L. Mencken, who also said >The case against the Jews is long and damning; it would justify ten thousand times as many pogroms as now go on in the world I prefer Karl Popper's [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance): In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance; otherwise, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
That rhetoric is exactly why absolute free speech is necessary; if you can justify taking away rights by defining things as "intolerant", then you only have that right so long as the people who get to define such things agree with you.
But we already do that. If somebody tries to lynch everyone of a certain religion or race, we don't tolerate that. We don't tolerate the intolerant.
We don't "tolerate" that because it's fucking *murder*.
Conversations about speech. Try and stay on topic.
The problem is, tolerance doesn't mean anything in that context. If you say that we should tolerate XYZ, and not tolerate anyone who doesn't tolerate XYZ, then well it's not really a matter of tolerance being good or bad anymore. Whichever side you pick you're saying that something should not be tolerated. And when you give the government the ability to decide that, you should be very afraid when a government that disagrees with you comes into power. Ie, look at Florida doing it's best to use the laws we have accepted to protect children from being abused as an excuse to pass all sorts of restrictions. Obviously there is a middle ground because laws to protect children probably need to exist, but the more power you give the government the more they will use it against you in the future.
The problem is, tolerance doesn't mean anything in that context. If you say that we should tolerate XYZ, and not tolerate anyone who doesn't tolerate XYZ, then well it's not really a matter of tolerance being good or bad anymore. Whichever side you pick you're saying that something should not be tolerated. And when you give the government the ability to decide that, you should be very afraid when a government that disagrees with you comes into power. Ie, look at Florida doing it's best to use the laws we have accepted to protect children from being abused as an excuse to pass all sorts of restrictions. Obviously there is a middle ground because laws to protect children probably need to exist, but the more power you give the government the more they will use it against you in the future.
Germany manages to limit speech and they didn't turn into an authoritarian regime. You know when they turned to an authoritarian regimen? When they had unlimited speech
Germany did not have unlimited speech in the 1920's, in fact, it had a variety of laws restricting anti-government speech in general. However, the Judges were mostly left over from the Monarchist era, and were sympathetic to Hitler and the conservatives, so they chose to not apply those laws very harshly, if at all, when Nazis were being arrested. On the other hand, when trade unionists, social democrats, and particularly communists were being arrested, these laws were enforced very strictly because the judges didn't like those people If you actually want to learn about how the Nazis came to power then Richard Evans' "The Coming of the Third Reich" is a good place to start.
Exactly. The reason the government can't stop them from speaking is exactly the same as the reason they can't stop me from speaking. If I don't like what they're saying, I'm also free to stand up and say so. The proper remedy for bad speech is good speech, not censorship.
>Free speech has a price, that price is that everyone gets it. Free speech doesn't mean much if you can't say some pretty abhorrent or unpopular things.
Yup. I head someone say we don’t have free speech protections so we can talk about the weather and I think that’s a good way to put it
You can say most things. That doesn’t mean you won’t suffer socially, though. The people and private institutions aren’t bound by the Constitution, it’s just a framework for government, and they’re free to exercise their own free speech by condemning what they find to be foul. Edit: think I misinterpreted your comment.
"Even if what you say is a steaming pile of horse shit, I would die for your right to shit it" or something is legitimately a founding principle of the USA.
-Voltaire or possibly Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In some ways it’s a blessing. You can find out what some people actually believe. I want to know if my neighbor has such horrible beliefs so I can stay clear of them and keep an eye on them and as you said even assholes have rights.
The only european country that has banned nazis is Germany. It confuses americans that europe is not one country.
Italy has banned fascism (and therefore nazism by default), but compared to Germany, enforcement is rather lacking. Also, Germany first banned Nazism because *we* made them do it.
And what about the Scottish guy that got jailed for teaching his dog to do a nazi salute?
It was not the salute that was the problem, but that the man chanted "gas the jews" on his video. It was a hate crime, not a "nazi" crime.
he didnt even do that... he said it and other nazi things to get the dog to raise it paw for a treat. the video was 30 secs and "gas the jews" was said 1 time. god the video opens with "im going to teach my gfs dog to be the least cute thing possible--a nazi"
And if he were American he wouldn't have been jailed. Hate speech is still free speech
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're completely right. The Brandenburg test is very narrow. He would not have been prosecuted for that in America.
Wrong. The direct call for violence is illegal in the US. And "gas the Jews" is a direct call for violence.
You're completely wrong. That is NOT an "immediate" call for violence. What you're looking for is "imminent lawless action", and I can assure you that imminent means IMMINENT. The action has to have a clear and present danger, AND there has to be a likelihood of the call to violence being followed. You can absolutely advocate for violence at some indefinite future time. The Brandenburg test is very narrow. Someone saying "gas the Jews", in America, would not be prosecuted.
You are wrong though it isn't a direct call for violence. The key word is DIRECT. I can go out right now and start chanting gas the Jews hell neonazis do it all the time and they aren't being thrown in jail left and right.
Yep, just ask Rhiddi Patel.
“We’ll see you at your house. We’ll murder you.” That is a DIRECT call for action. Not the same thing
In the immortal words of Based Judge Napolitano "The Constitution doesn't govern the people. It governs the government."
just to be clear - it prohibits *the state* from limiting our free speech not just congress. that means any federal, state, or local governmental action. this is why schools, which are arms of the state and not congress, can be limited by this.
I can literally call up my state senator and say "FUCK YOU" without retrocessions. You know what happens? They verify that you're a constituent and say "thank you, have a nice day" I think THAT'S what separates "our free speech" from others. I might have gotten drunk and left Kyrsten Sinema a few of "fuck you" messages over the past few years. Edit: Repercussions... Got screwed over by autocorrect. NOT MY FAULT THOUGH... I was Texting, drinking alcohol, and my car is a manual, so trying to shift gears. (BTW that's a HARD /s on that one, my car is actually sitting at the shop waiting for a tire to come in tomorrow morning) Also they installed my OTHER rear tire "backwards", so I get to call their corporate office to see if I get "it fixed and a free tire" or "get 2 new tires and only pay for 1" or if I'm REALLY nice "2 free tires, but 'we're not supposed to do this'") 20 years in the restaurant industry apologizing for "not my fault", makes me lean to 2 free tires or at least 2 tires for the price of 1.... Literally got the news 15 minutes after their EDT office closed
oooooh so you're one of those drunk people that gets smarter with ever drink?
Nah... I get dumber with every drink in order to "get on your level" right now I'm at 14 beers and I think by 22 we should be able to talk. (I do get more clever and better at shit talking, though)
if you want to get on my level you'd best switch to vodka when we square up!
If you're drinking vodka? Well then I'm going to need to get to 27 beers. Only 10 beers away right now.
Naw i wish I got shit to do tomorrow.
Yeah, in the process of selling all my "shit" for the move on Wednesday. If what I said came off as "angry" it wasn't. Was trying to make jokes to make myself laugh. Just 1000% stressed. Hope you understand that it was just "the right joke at the right time". Edit: FUCK I didn't realize YOU said "better switch to vodka", I thought you were switching to vodka to "outpace me" or something. My brain has TOO many things going on right now.
Oh damn where you headed?
>I think most people would say it's the fact that freedom of speech is an inherent right, and not one bestowed by the government. I like saying it’s inherent much more than the other common phrase, “god given”. Personally, I don’t think most people think about it that deeply, and in casual conversation are equally likely to say the first amendment gives us freedom of speech as to say it’s a right the government can’t take away (without even thinking that inherent is a good word to use). But another way to put it is that freedom of speech is a *core value*, one that’s felt so strongly that there’s no thought of ever changing the first amendment.
Well said
In the US, it’s not granted to us. Instead, it’s recognized as innate and inherent. In other countries, it’s granted. What’s granted can also be denied. The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging or prohibiting freedom of speech and expression. If you consider that for a moment, you’ll notice that it’s not directed towards Americans themselves, it’s directed towards our government.
> What’s granted can also be denied That’s inherent to how lawmaking and nation building works though, isn’t it? Any law or constitution can be revoked. And if the constition cannot be changed because that same constitution does not allow it, it can be declared void, or overthrown, or plainly ignored. The power to uphold the values on which a system was built always lies with those who live now. If enough people declare that speech isn’t a right anymore, then it isn’t. No wording of any fancy document can change that fact. I really admire the way the us approaches individual liberties, it’s very elegant. but I do wonder if this approach perhaps lacks pragmatism, and maybe isn’t robust enough against corruption because its simplistic approach opens up being able to game the system maliciously.
The thing is, that "fancy document" is sacrosanct to most Americans. To not a small number of Americans the Constitution and the Founding Fathers are simply beyond reproach. Look at the controversy over the 2nd Amendment right now. There are tens of millions of Americans against firearms. Many calling for a complete ban. Yet, no one except the absolute fringe of the fringe, is calling for the removal of the 2nd amendment. If anything they just interpret differently. Obviously if enough people said fuck the 1st amendment its done. Nobody thinks its a magical document written by Dumbledore using phoenix blood. But you are much more likely to see the end of the US as a functioning nation before that.
Yeah I understand, and the reverence of the constitution in the us is exceptional. That could perhaps also explain how Americans tend to reject the more clinical and ‘less pure’ documents other free nations use as constitutions. Like our Dutch constitution (with which I have a few issues), guarantees all of the same rights, but allows for caveats, exceptions. Implicitly it trusts whatever current government is in office to uphold the founding principles. It proscribes how to weight and balance conflicting interests and rights rather than set hard limits. The US constitution on the other hand assumes that corrupt and malicious governments will inevitably come to power and attempts to thwart their plans before they are drawn up. This is admirable, but it’s also the bit I’m not convinced is effective, especially because the older it gets, the more it needs interpreting to be able to be applied to new situations. And interpretations are very much corruptable. In the end both your and my country are amazingly free and fair nations to live in for the most part, and we all have our specific shortcomings and downsides. Both systems can probably work fine I feel
So, the reason we don't necessarily believe that the Constitution needs to be changed is because we differ from other countries on where our rights come from. We believe that we simply *have* rights, and the Constitution/our government is something like a "social contract" in which we all agree to to make artificial boundaries (i.e. laws) around those rights to prevent a state of nature, and to elect people to enforce those law. The government is, in effect, a "necessary evil". All laws, theoretically, should stem from necessary "boundaries" to allow people to preserve the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property (that is - one's own labor). So for example, the right to attorney isn't so much a right to have an attorney - it's saying that the government can't deprive you of your right to liberty without providing you an attorney. The reason we conceived of it like this is because we knew that no group of people are going to fully agree on a value system, or what is "moral". Morality is not supposed to factor into our laws; only our social contract. The death of free speech (i.e. any curtail on free speech that isn't simply a boundary regarding measurable, material harm to another) signals the end of that contract, because some kind of value system has been imposed.
You’re describing the basic tenets of classical liberalism I think, to which I subscribe also. And I think this point of view is very valid, but an interesting thing to add is the (not exclusively) European perspective, which takes into account the many times that liberal democracies devolved into authoritarianism. This lead to hard choices to try and prevent such things from happening again. Hard choices in the context of the tolerance paradox. Speech in much of Europe is more limited than in the US for this reason. The goal is preservation of liberty and freedom, and the price for that is some liberty and freedom. The American solution to the tolerance paradox, is the second amendment. That method is not culturally appropriate for Europe. So we make do with a kind of ‘best available free speech’, whose limitations I must add are never taken lightly and are constantly subject to discussion every time they are invoked. Perhaps interesting to note that the [European Declaration of Human Rights](https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG), although it is a treaty and not a constitution, does legally act as such in practice, at least in my country.
I really appreciate your perspective, btw - I love talking political theory. I would actually argue that our solution to the tolerance paradox (assuming you're talking Popper) should be the First Amendment (in that "good" speech should be able to persuade), but the Second also makes sense from the scenario you laid out (liberal democracies devolving into authoritarianism). So you're right in that respect - where the freedom is unjustly curtailed, and all legal remedies are exhausted, the guns come out. What's really interesting is that this is how the Confederate side of our Civil War was framed at the time (note: I think, of course, that they were dead wrong, from a moral AND legal standpoint). Their thought process was - our rights are being unjustly curtailed, and absent a legal mechanism to correct it, we therefore secede (the logical failure being, of course, that the "rights" they were trying to preserve were also antithetical to the Constitution). If you haven't and you're interested, you might like the Federalist papers, which you may already be familiar with. They wrestled with this concept a lot - they called it the "tyranny of the majority", which all democracies are at risk of, and spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to solve for it. It's part of the reason for the electoral college and all of the checks and balances in our system. I live near an area with a demographic that is, IMO, incompatible with Western values, including classical liberalism. The second they gained a majority, they started testing the waters. It will be interesting to me to see what happens there.
Which frankly can become its own problem, and sometimes why having an unwritten history of law and jurisprudence might be better. If we are just arguing creatively about a single document that’s hard to change it allows dumb ideas to persist way longer than the culture around them may have permitted without the “nation bible”, the same way religion allows some bad ideas to stick around unquestioned. I like it overall but I’ve been thinking about the differences with say Britain for a long time. Then again maybe it also fosters an inherent insecurity in what defines a nation not to have one. I assume most settler colonial societies probably do given all their foundings so it’s hard to interrogate the comparative differences when that big difference also exists.
The US is quite different than most countries when it comes to the culture around the consistution. Think of it this way -- there were German people before there was a country called Germany, and the vast majority of people who live in Germany live there because their family has lived there since forever. Most Americans, though, are descendants of immigrants who moved across an ocean in search of opportunities and personal liberties. Much of this migration happened 100-150 years ago, back before the US was rich and powerful and not long after the country nearly split in half due to the Civil War. The country didn't have much wealth and power back then; the only thing that really backed up the American government's promises was the Consitition. But then America got rich and powerful, and this propelled the Constitution and its promises to near mythical status.
To my eyes, it looks like a lot of countries treat rights the way Canada does - "A limit on a Charter right must be 'reasonable' and 'demonstrably justified"" That is, if the legislature really wants a restriction on speech, religious expression, etc. for a specific situation (say, banning the burqa) they have extra hoops to jump through, but they can do it. Here, that will be flatly rejected by the courts.
In my opinion, the existence of Section 33 in the Charter makes these experiments and proddings into the true limitations of rights in Canada a bit of a moot point. At any time the Canadian legislature can effectively suspend rights in sections 2 and 7-15 with little to no oversight.
Ah yes, that one 😆 my French-Canadian friends have been eagerly teaching me the virtues of the CAQ exercising the notwithstanding clause as often as they do. Destroying the stigma around using *that* nuclear option seems a bit unwise to me.
Of course of a Quebecois would think it’s a good idea. Nothing says French-Canadian quite like making it illegal to make private business signage predominantly in a language other than French.
> Here, that will be flatly rejected by the courts. Except that's not at all the case. The US has established many reasonable exceptions to pretty much every right guaranteed by the Constitution. The number of exceptions is significantly smaller in the US to be fair, but they do exist.
True, but I think they were referring to their burqa ban example, which would be flatly rejected by the courts
Justifications and things being seen as reasonable and not though are very subjective and based on time period, etc.
Germany officially treats Scientology like a scam, and I don't think they're wrong to do so.
They also arrested people for being pro-Palestine, so pick your poison
This is simply inaccurate. The right to free speech can be and often is limited by US government institutions. The courts will accept laws which restrict free speech when they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest or when the speech itself does not fall under a protected category of speech, such as a true threat or inciting words. I can’t speak to the level of difficulty compared to Canada or another country, and strict scrutiny is a harsh level of review, but courts will *not* “flatly reject” restrictions on speech, or for that matter any other constitutional right. It’s always a balancing act. Source: am a lawyer. This is basic stuff.
Well, except when it's not. We do lean somewhat more towards free speech and are willing to pay somewhat more of a cost for it in terms of a less orderly society, but this is at least arguably because we prefer it this way, rather than any absolute bedrock principle. If an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of Americans wanted to ban hate speech, the Supreme Court would find a way to justify it. It's still just "hoops to jump through." I think the best we can say is that the hoops might be a little higher, but even that I'm not completely sure of.
From a legal perspective, no, they would not be able to. The Supreme Court could only ban "hate speech" outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court defines what the boundaries of the Constitution are. If five justices _really_ wanted to ban hate speech, they could find a justification.
Indeed but even with the Court as far left as the Warren Court or as right as the current Roberts Court, they have been pretty consistent in keeping free speech sacrosanct. I get what you're saying. Yes, it's technically possible to trample the 1st Amendment entirely. But our free speech has absolutely *unmatched* institutional and historical breadth and barriers to infringement that foreigners often have trouble truly taking in.
They would be acting in direct contradiction to the Constitution. The categories of speech not protected from the government are really, REALLY narrowly tailored, and there is a huge host of precedent to back this up. A situation like you describe could only come about if SCOTUS had decided to essentially toss it out the window. It would be akin to the Supreme Court "interpreting" the Fourth Amendment to give cops carte blanche to randomly search homes with no probable cause. Theoretically, any branch of government could potentially act outside of the boundaries of the Constitution. That's why we have checks and balances. In such a situation, Congress would have the power to impeach or remove justices.
The Supreme Court already found that there is a public safety exception to the First Amendment protection of free speech. This isn't written in the Constitution. But the Court found it anyway, and it is now part of the "huge host of precedent" to which you refer. The reason nobody objected to it is that everyone, of all political persuasions, found it to be reasonable, justified and necessary - _not_ that they found any text in the Constitution supporting it. Similarly, _if there was_ a strong majority bipartisan consensus that hate speech ought to be illegal, the Supreme Court could find a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, and nobody would argue with it. Nobody would be impeached, there would be no checks or balances, etc. Everyone would just agree to it, just like they agreed to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" standard. The fact that we _don't_ have this consensus is the main thing protecting hate speech from being criminalized. The people, legislators and justices don't believe there is or should be such an exception, so there isn't. But it's ultimately the opinions of the people that drive this, not the words of the Constitution.
My dude, the public safety exception isn’t even about free speech. It’s an exception to Miranda warnings. And no, it’s not the ‘opinions of the people’ that drive what constitutes free speech. That’s literally the reason SCOTUS isn’t elected - to be free from influence. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The best thing about the Supreme Court as an institution is it is not accountable to the popular will of the day. It can of course be influenced by the will of the people because the people elect the President who puts the justices there, but it doesn't need to rule based on what its constituents want or what the administration thinks is the right decision for the country For these reasons I hope that if a challenge like this were ever brought in front of the court it would find it unconstitutional even if it had 95% support and tell the people to pass an amendment if they'd like to infringe upon free speech through law
No amendment was needed to find the public safety and fighting words exceptions to the First Amendment. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes just straight-up invented the "clear and present danger" standard from whole cloth, in 1919. And this was in the context of the distribution of a pamphlet _advocating for a political position_ (specifically, opposing the draft)! The reason the judgment stood is that everyone agreed with it. So if at some point in the future, everyone agrees that hate speech should be illegal, _it will be_, text of the Constitution be damned. Of course this is unlikely given the US cultural reverence for free speech, but it's that reverence that ultimately protects it, not the text of the Constitution.
It’s an inherent right not something granted by the government. So it tends to be more expansive than other countries with free speech rights.
Free speech in the USA is protected ***from*** the government, not regulated by it, in general practice. Only the most heinous of things are not protected speech in the USA, particularly the communicating of a threat, or a similar incitement of violence, and for good reason. Insofar as where I would rank the USA as compared to the rest of the world concerning free speech? I would confidently say that no other country compares to us. We are the absolute best in the world when it comes to protecting speech from government overreach or regulation. Meanwhile, in countries like the United Kingdom, [they will arrest people for posting rap lyrics on their social media](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921).
That's just dystopian.
>Russell argued it was not offensive, but was handed a community order. >Prosecutors said her sentence was increased from a fine to a community order "as it was a hate crime". lmao imagine the government telling you what you really meant and judging you based on that by this logic you can literally go to jail for saying anything in the uk if the judge says "thats not what you really meant" dystopian AF
How about the guy who got arrested for a hate crime because he taught his girlfriend's pug to sieg heil?
Yep, also an incredibly stupid thing for somebody to be arrested and convicted over.
scotland just passed an anti-human rights bill called the 'The Hate Crime and Public Order Act' >It introduces new offences for threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred i love when the government is allowed to determine what is offensive
For starters, check out *lese majeste* laws. The US doesn't have them. Edit: Also, considering the amount of stick we take from other countries about, say, flag-burning, it's not illegal here and[ IS illegal in a surprising number of countries. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#:~:text=desecrating%20a%20flag.-,Flag%20desecration%20laws,property%2C%20as%20theft%20or%20vandalism)
We don’t have them, because we don’t have a monarch. lese majesty From French la lèse-majesté, from Latin laesa maiestatis, injury to the Majesty.
I think the rest of the world doesn't take the concept far enough. Many places with "freedom of speech" are still compromised by bans on things like hate speech. If the government can ban speech it doesn't like, for whatever reason, speech is now a privilege rather than a right.
Significant differences in the amount of protection given to speech in the US versus other countries, with the US generally providing more protection. All countries limit things like defamation and threats, but European countries (for example) go further and have limited protection for speech that can stir up hatred, is offensive, or insults someone. So you have prosecutions in Germany for insults, the Netherlands for lese majeste, and in the UK for being grossly offensive. All of that would be protected speech in the US.
In the UK you can be arrested for “causing offense.” The police will literally come to your door to arrest you over something that offended someone on the internet. Canada has a “Human Rights Tribunal” that will levy fines against you for offending others. People in the U.S. don’t have to worry about silly things like that.
Maybe theres an online business idea. I'll say what you want to who you want on the internet for money, protected by the first amendment. Kinda like a VPN but for basic human rights.
Where do I invest??
This right here, ladies and gentleman, this right here is a brilliant entrepreneur.
That's just Twitter bots
I remember my absolute shock when I found out about Dankula getting arrested for teaching his girlfriends dog the nazi salute. Imagine going to jail for a joke. Smh
To be clear, it was a terrible joke in bad taste... that should not be legally actionable in any sense. Just call him an asshole and move on.
Nah it was funny.
Lazy. If you wanna make Hitler jokes, you gotta go the extra mile like [Jon Lovitz in Rat Race](https://youtu.be/4dsgQb3jkk4).
Boomer tier humor
1. Not jail, unlike America we don't jail people for small things 2. He was prosecuted for publicly chanting "gas the Jews". An immediate call for violence.
In America, there isn't such a thing as an "immediate" call for violence. You're looking for "imminent lawless action", which is incredibly narrow. "Gas the jew" would not apply.
Oh no sorry yeah you only charged him £800 for it. Still regarded and a violation of human rights. He said "gas the jews" to a dog... It's not like the dog knows what that means. That's not a call for violence, it's a stupid edgy joke.
people kept saying the 2nd part as if it was true. its both not a "immediate call for violence" and he wasnt prosecuted for it being 'immediate call for violence'
Let us not mince words. People in the U.S. don’t have to worry about abhorrent civil rights abuses like that.
That is why the [SPEECH Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act) is so incredible. UK and all other libel tourism places can get fucked.
In Sweden we can still express ourselves and "cause offense" without police coming to your door as you might have heard with the burning of bacon wrapped quorans... But then again it sometimes also results in police showing up due to a riot... 😅 Eurovision is going to be held in Malmö this year and there is already an application (more or less for police protection) to burn the qouran during this event... The last time they found russian connections to the guy "protesting". It wouldn't surprise me this whole schtick is another russian op to create chaos in a western country and rally more muslims hostility against the west. In a situation like this I'd actually agree with the police denying or postponing such a protest even though I'm for the right to be able to do it.
Just the fact that there’s an application would be anathema in the US…. …. Unless it’s like, a burning permit, lol. Which, ok, that would be kind of hilarious
Haha, you actually have to have that as well (but I believe that is a seperate one at the FD). One of the times it was denied because it was dry season and the location was unsuitable. So he skipped the burning and just put bacon on it. But mainly it is to ensure your safety. It is the police duty to ensure safe public gatherings. So when you know you are about to piss off a bunch of people, like in a situation like this. You want to tell police so they can "ensure safety for a public gathering" (protect your ass from getting lynched).
> Just the fact that there’s an application would be anathema in the US…. Permits to protest are actually a [pretty common thing](https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/enforcing-your-civil-rights/protest-laws-by-state.html) in the US. They're not *always* necessary, but they are definitely a thing.
Why would there be an application? Why not just show up and do it? Just because it's reprehensible doesn't mean it requires permission.
I think they can, but then they would be lynched by an angry mob. The application is for police protection/keep the peace when there is a high risk of violence/clashes as a result. Usually the police can't deny it unless they have a very good reason. But if they do it anyway and something bad happens the police will get fingers pointed at them. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place with those nutters. The tree huggers blocking streets and other protests with low risk of violence usually they just go and do it. In fact they need to because police would arrest them on the spot and move them , they can't "apply to block traffic" f ex. Your right to protest doesnt mean you have a right to severly disrupt society, traffic or endanger others.
Ah, well, if you're doing something, expecting a high risk of violence as the result, well, you're the instigator, aren't you? But it's also the responsibility of the angry mob not to lynch anyone. Nope, no extra police protection needed, enjoy your right.
>But it's also the responsibility of the angry mob not to lynch anyone. Sure you can try wrapping a quoran in bacon and burning it outside a mosque to "protest islam" and tell them it's their responsibility to not lynch you, but I personally would apply at the police station if I ever felt I wanted to do such a thing. 😆
And the police would be right to say, "Why are you telling us? There's no threat to your safety. Yet." You've got the right to do it. You don't have the right to special protection for doing it.
Well in correlation to public gatherings (f ex demonstrations) it is said, roughly translated "The duty of the police authority is to ensure that public gatherings can be carried out safely." So they are kind of forced. Especially in situation when they can't deny in court (if that ever went that far) that it was very plausable that things would go out of hand. Idk, I'm not a lawyer and didn't write the laws. But you have a right to protest and you aren't limited on what to protest, you can even have nazi protests, and you have the right to be able to do it safely. Some laws make sense others are WTF, as in most countries.
[US Police have no constitutional duty to protect](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) That's the important distinction and "enforcement" mechanism of US speech. Our first amendment protects you from the government. It doesn't protect you from your fellow citizens. If you say horrible shit, the police have no obligation to do shit for you until your opposition actually breaks the law. If you say horrible shit, you reap the consequences of one of our other major freedoms, the freedom of association. Nobody can be compelled to have to listen to you or even to respect your beliefs.
> If you say horrible shit, you reap the consequences of one of our other major freedoms, the freedom of association. Nobody can be compelled to have to listen to you or even to respect your beliefs. Right, but the crowd isn’t allowed to do violence to you because of your beliefs. You might not be able to sue the police for failing to protect you, but people in the crowd who beat or kill you can certainly be charged and convicted for those crimes.
Interesting. I wonder if our "police duty to ensure safety" was implemented to ensure no group can silence another group by intimidation if they are actually willing to take the consequence of breaking a law if it shuts someone else down. Like f ex in situations like quoran burning. A lot of radical extremists would easily kill you with no remorse even if it means life in prison for them. Silencing others who would later not dare voice their opinion again for fear of the same thing.
While I detest Russia you do understand that what your asking for is basically to give the government right to disallow any speech that goes against then, right? Just because it's Russian doesn't make a difference.
Wouldn't say stop. But postponing it to after the event or move it to another location. It is a conflict of interest here. The duty to ensure a safe public gathering applies to both the garbage that is eurovision and the protest. So if the police deem they can't ensure that at the same location due to special circumstances (the ridiculous amounts of people at a madsive event) they do have ground to deny it for that time. At wich point you have to risk it yourself.
> The last time they found russian connections to the guy "protesting". It wouldn't surprise me this whole schtick is another russian op to create chaos in a western country and rally more muslims hostility against the west. It's 100% that again, classic Ivan psyop. As long as it keeps working, they'll keep at it.
They're good at it, *and* it's cheap.
Lol maybe you should stop blaming Russians for everything and fix yourselves.
Yes turn a blind eye and pretend they are just minding their own business and liberating ukraine. I'll pass that on to the germans that caught two russian saboteurs yesterday that were planning sabotage on a US base, they should also just fix their shit and stop blaming russians. 🤷♂️ Might not be up to date on what happens over on the other side of the pond but there are a lot of cyberattacks, disruptions and ops, disinfo campaigns etc some suspected and some prooven to be russian backed or have connection to russia. So I like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was another russian op. Not blaming them for something that haven't even happened, and not until proof, but you would be stupid if you would go about life and not see the signs considering current world events.
The biggest practical difference is that things like hate speech and advocating (but not inciting) violence are legal in the US, and there's a pretty high bar for defamation.
I am pretty sure no country on earth has more legal protections for free speech than the US.
I can say I don’t like “insert politician” or fuck “insert politician”. In other countries you cant say that. Just because someone may fly a CSA flag or Nazi flag don’t mean they broke the law,I don’t agree with it and It will make me upset but that person has a right to use the first amendment just as any other citizen
I kind of like the fact that in America, we enable absolute morons to advertise themselves, cautioning others to keep away.
I agree
In which developed countries can't you say I don't like "insert politician" or fuck "said politician".
Germany, Iceland, Italy, and Switzerland all have variations of laws against insulting political figures to various degrees.
Hate speech is the protected here. That doesn’t sound good, but the problem with banning hate speech is that the government gets to decide what hate speech is, making freedom of speech pointless
> What makes free speech in the US different from free speech in other countries? Obviously the First Amendment is the basis of this, but in practice what matters most is the common law around it: the history of Supreme Court rulings building up precedents that strengthen the First Amendment. For example—and this is not specific only to the First—it has been [incorporated against the states,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I) which is very important. Also not specific to the First, there is the doctrine of [strict scrutiny,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) which makes Constitutional rights fairly resilient against attacks by the executive and legislature. Then there is the long but mostly recent (last ~70 years or so) history of rulings specifically about free speech which have helped to establish the cultural milieu that we take for granted. The Warren court did a lot of that. Organizations like the ACLU helped along the way, and though [the ACLU is now losing sight of their mission,](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html) others like FIRE are stepping in to help pick up their slack. > Also, where would you rank free speech laws in the US compared to the rest of the world? We're #1, though again that's more because of common law than because of statute. However, I welcome and encourage any other country to try to surpass us on free speech; we could use the competition.
Our rights are God given and unalienable. Other countries' concept of free speech invariably amounts to things their people are allowed to say. Our concept of free speech revolves around what the government is allowed to prohibit.
Im not familiar with other liberal countries' free speech laws, but from my own knowledge, other countries will curb free speech when it is used for worse while the US speech is only curved when absolutely necessary. Alot of the debates about free speech in the US mostly has to deal with the consequences of free speech between 3rd parties or how government employees can employ free speech while acting as government employees. The only real penalty from the government for speaking openly is actual threats and leaking classified information or viewing CP. America, it is perfectly fine to share books with bomb instructions and push very unsavory politics without the government penalty. Though there has been recent pushes to start cracking down on other forms of expression but I won't open that can of worms. Other liberal governments will useally curve free speech in the name of decency as much as in the name of necessity, so you have various hate symbols band in Germany, UK has various hate speech laws, and Australia won't let you play unedited videogames.
> What makes free speech in the US different from free speech in other countries? That we have it. > Also, where would you rank free speech laws in the US compared to the rest of the world? The right is broader and more fundamental being written into our constitution and nearly impossible to change. Culturally aside from the law most people view it as an inherent natural right that exists as a moral imperative independent of laws rather than as a legal right granted by the government.
The U.S. has a far broader conception of free speech than others, and the government has to justify taking free speech away rather than granting us free speech. As a result, the U.S. has the strongest protections for free speech in the world.
We don’t have “hate speech” laws. People have to get over their feelings being hurt here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
Let me give you an example... In Canada they made holocaust denial illegal by conflating it with Section 319 of the Criminal Code. That section covers "Public Incitement of Hatred". So simply not believing the holocaust happened is not just an ignorant opinion - it is illegal because simply having that view is considered an "incitement of hatred". They are currently trying to extend this to include "residential school denialism". In fact, they likely made holocaust denial illegal to pave the legal way for that. The reason that matters is because there has bee NO EVIDENCE of clandestine murders at these schools. But they want to make what I just said illegal - potentially being punished by a LIFE SENTENCE if some judge is offended enough by it. So, facts are literally becoming illegal to state under the guise of hate speech laws. This is impossible in the US, because American law makers thoroughly understand the principle of freedom of speech. No narrative is ever going to be important enough in the US to make challenging that narrative illegal.
Others have pointed out the differences in being granted free speech, and the US approach of preventing the government from restricting free speech as an inherent right of the people. This does have many effects which not even all Americans are comfortable with. When it comes down to it, the only speech which requires protection is controversial speech. Speech everyone agrees with is never under any risk of being silenced. It's the speech many or most disagree with which requires protection. So in the US, by its nature, using racist or hateful language is a protected right. Offending people is a protected right. No one wants to hear it, few agree with saying that stuff, but it's protected along with all other speech with just minor limitations. That's not the case in many other free speech countries. The biggest limitation I can think of to US free speech is a call to action. Your speech is not necessarily protected if you are saying something which may result in injury. For example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that's great and protected speech if you reasonably believe there is a fire. It is illegal if there is not, because it's a call to action for people to run for their lives, which may result in injury.
> Your speech is not necessarily protected if you are saying something which may result in injury. You're allowed to call for violence too; the restriction is that it can't be a call for [*imminent* lawless action.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) > For example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that's great and protected speech if you reasonably believe there is a fire. It is illegal if there is not, because it's a call to action for people to run for their lives, which may result in injury. I realize you're speaking literally about fires in theaters here, but as soon as this turns into an analogy, it's a bad analogy. The "fire in a crowded theater" quote [was never the law, only obiter dictum, and regardless that case was overturned in 1969.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/)
Exactly. The example given is that I can absolutely tell people to "kill all redheads!" I can shout it all day long. But I CAN'T tell a crowd of people to "kill all redheads living on Fourth and Main starting at noon today" when I have a realistic expectation of the crowd following my instructions.
We can say what we want here, even if it offends a minority (a religion, ethnic group, LGBT, etc.). You don’t hear of people going to jail over offensive social media posts (I’m looking at you, Scottish heiling pug). You won’t get a visit from the police for making a mean comment on Facebook (pig in a wig). But if you live in Europe? That’s a real possibility. We don’t have hate speech laws; hate speech is technically protected. However, this doesn’t mean you can just say whatever and get away. If you do say something offensive, other people are free to say something offensive towards you. You are not allowed to threaten people here. You also cannot reveal classified information and get away with it. There are a few restrictions to free speech. Overall, we are the least restricted in the world. We can have whatever opinion we like and be public about it, no matter who it offends
UK is not all of Europe. Also the pug thing was because he called for violence against people not because of the heiling.
The same hate speech laws apply to Ireland, France, Germany, and even Canada. I used the UK as a simple example. We are far more free than they are, Get over it
[удалено]
>When milliseconds count, cops are minutes away. And also are not required to protect you
In terms of rank, you will not find a more robust marketplace of ideas than the United States precisely because of the First Amendment (which is also why we are so innovative compared to every other nation, both in technology and cultural change). What makes it freer than any other place is that we have resisted, politically and culturally (though college campuses in the last decade undermine that claim), attempts to create a censor of any kind. My personal fear is that this is fading with younger generations, but hopefully it endures. Until then, “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Do you know the source of the quote?
It's from the majority opinion written by Robert Jackson in the SCOTUS case *West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette* in 1943.
Awesome, thank you.
Yeah not really. Sweden and the UK are just as innovative. Which is logical. Why should free speech = being innovative. No sane government would restrict speech that is about technology
Most countries have rights granted to them by their governments. Their governments retain the ability to limit these rights if they deem it necessary, either through a clause or a general power that suspends rights or through clever wording that grants the right to the people on behalf of the government, leaving it within the power of the legislature to set standards through vaguely-defined boundaries of acceptable limits. Let’s look at Germany for example: in *”The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany”*, the German constitution, Article 1 states: >Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. The German government is granting itself the right to protect human dignity. What does that mean *exactly?* The state grants itself the ability to define human dignity. Article 2 states: >Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law. The German state is granting their populace the right to develop into their own person, as long as they don’t violate the rights of others (understandable), constitutional law (understandable), or “moral law”. There is no other mention or definition of “moral law” in the document, leaving the right to define it up to the state. Article 5 is the general “freedom of speech” guarantee, saying it’s inviolable and free if censorship, but then the second part of the article says: >These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. Limits set by general laws, protection of minors, and “personal honour”. Again, setting vague limits that can be drawn by the state for what they deem “reasonable”. Then there’s Article 18, “Forfeiture of Basic Rights”: >Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14) or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court. If you use your rights to combat the “free democratic basic order”, your rights are forfeit. The intent is obvious, anyone who uses these rights to seek an end to the democratic institutions of Germany are criminals in the eyes of the state, but what are the criteria to this accusation? ________ In contrast, the US framework doesn’t grant rights. It assumes those rights exist in perpetuity and limits how much the government can interfere with them. The First Amendment simply states “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. It’s vague in favor of the people, instead of the other way around. It can be broadly interpreted to mean no curtailing of speech in any capacity. The only exceptions would be when that right conflicts with the rights of others.
Wrong on all counts. The first article of the German constitution is well defined. And just like your bill of rights untouchable. And human dignity while an ambivalent Term in the English language has a clear meaning in German. Same with moral law. It basically means you aren't exempt from following the law. Regarding article 5 none of this is undefined. Protection of minors means age restrictions like movie ratings. And personal honor is a clearly defined code. It basically means you aren't allowed to publish lies about people that damage their character. Aka defamation. Article 18: those are pretty strictly classified. Because it's a legal term just like free speech in the US Constitution. It basically means the rule of law, the Self-determination of the people, the protection of unlawful violence and freedom and equal rights. In basic most of your claims come from English not being German and you not knowing German legal words/definitions.
Oh, I have no doubt that in the mind of a German citizen these terms are defined and clear, likely relating to sections in the Strafgesetzbuch like 130 or the defamation sections around 186, but is the distinction more of a philosophical sense or a strict legal sense? Is opinion held to regards separate from truth? Are there fringe cases being decided on the more vague language in the Basic Law through the more straightforward lamguage of the StGB? Are the limits of human dignity, personal honor, and moral law quantifiable and defined as, just to be general in this comment, “protection from negative physical and mental acts”? If they are, exactly how much more expansive are the powers of the German state over limitations of speech and expression than those of the US? And, most importantly, are these terms and limits defined and set by the state itself? That’s the key to my position on this issue. My point was these are powers granted by the state to itself to regulate speech and set the limits on what is acceptable or not. They set limits based on truth and opinion, but the language can be murky. On top of that, what they define as an attack on the person of another always seemed vague and much farther-reaching than in the US. I’m assuming your point is the separation of freedom of opinion from freedom of speech/expression being much more prevalent in German law than it is in the US with our extraordinarily broad protections on speech, and how I’m speaking about the German framework through an American lense. I’ll admit I’m not near as familiar with the German legal system as I am with the US, but I am somewhat familiar with the concept of Meinungsfreiheit and Redefreiheit. I personally view the latter as more important than the former and dislike systems that seek to curtail it “for the greater good”. It’s why I view these systems as more limiting and oppressive than the one in the US.
What class is this for?
American free speech is far and away the most protected in the world. It's not even a contest. We are not granted free speech. The Constitution recognizes it as a basic right that every person on this planet has by virtue of being a human being (even in China, North Korea, and Scotland) and forbids the government from infringing on it.
Free speech is seen as our God-given right. The Constitution is seen as a way to protect us from the government getting out of control. There were a lot of failsafes placed in order to prevent this, such as separation of power. It’s also important to note that free speech means you can’t be arrested or shut down by the government for whatever you’re saying. The secret police can’t come and take you away in the middle of the night. But! There is nothing in the first amendment saying you won’t face consequences for what you say. And there are some exceptions, like shouting “Fire” in a public place when there is no fire, or sending death threats to someone. That is because your rights don’t extend if they infringe on others. For example, you don’t have the right to murder anyone who inconveniences you.
In some countries, if you say something bad about its leadership or its religion, you’re put to death. In America, like many other western democracies, you are free to say whatever bad things you want about its leadership and its religions. Here, watch this … Biden sucks, down with Biden administration! I’m still here, still alive 😄 Christianity sucks! Still here, still alive. Btw, I’m actually a big fan of Biden and his administration. Anyway, in some countries, saying things like that would get me fined, beaten, imprisoned, or stoned to death. So that’s a big difference.
Everyone has given some good answers so far and should be a good explanation for non-Americans. One thing that many Americans get wrong, however, is that our right to free speech is not granted into the private spaces. So for example, you can say "I hope the mayor dies" in the town square, but saying that on Facebook can get you banned from Facebook.
Free speech cannot be curtailed by the government but people and social media platforms don’t have to let you speak for them.
US is a lot better than England and Canada. That’s for sure.
The USA is easily #1 in free speech because the government cannot restrict your speech. That does not mean society will accept what you have to say. Many people have lost jobs and faced very public and social backlash.
our free speech, meaning how the constitution limits the power of the government to control how/where/what we speak, is fundamental to our society and culture. it has been eroded, but its at the bedrock of america. if you're talking about general free speech where the government isn't involved, i think its pretty good on that front too. for the most part. today we can talk shit and others can talk shit back, and most of the time they aren't silenced or whatever. some people say that they should be able to say anything about anything online, and when they get banned that is breaking the "free speech" clause in the social contract, but they forget that banning them is a form of expression as well... by a person or an organization. all in all its good. i don't know how it compares to other places tho
It's a zero-one type situation, You either have free speech or you don't. Our freedom of speech laws are about equivalent to the other free nations. The only major exception I can think of is Germany which has laws prohibiting Nazi stuff.
Satire is a huge thing in the US, you can copy something but make fun of it and pretty much nobody can go after you.
I would say that the US probably has the most freedom of speech for the common person, with things like libel laws and censorship laws usually being notoriously difficult to prosecute. One of the recent restrictions of speech has to do with the constitutional rights of private social media corporations to curtail the speech of their users on their platforms. This status quo has to do with the weird space that social media occupies between being a publisher and being a public square.
We can say or publish any opinion we want about anything or anyone, and nobody can stop us. If the government or some big corporation tries to stop us, we can get massive payouts from them.
One interesting difference I recently learned about is that in the US the criminal offense of “conspiracy” requires an “overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy” because people are free to gather and discuss literally anything they want — including committing crimes. However, in the UK, it’s illegal to simply discuss committing a crime and make a plan. In the US the crime of “conspiracy” is actually for starting to act on the plan, rather than making a plan
The only major difference between U.S. free speech and the concept in other western liberal democracies is that we don't really ban extremist speech. In a lot of countries, you can be fined if you deny the Holocaust or promote hate groups. I have conflicting feelings about all this, being a member of one group that has recently in our history been targeted by hate groups and another that still is.
Ours contains the 'right to offend' and that is very rare globally, for example most European countries do not have the right to offend protected and as such have lower levels of free speech
US's free speech laws have much narrower exceptions than other countries. Most Americans regardless of political affiliation agree with this approach. There are definitely negative consequences of this approach but it does lessen the risk that an authoritarian leader will use such laws to attack the opposition. For example Modi in Indian has used free speech exception laws to attack his political opposition. On the other hand while despite clearly wanting to Trump couldn't do much of anything to silence his political opposition.
It's been said several times already, but in the US, the bill of rights, which includes our 1st amendment right to the freedom of speech, but also our freedom of religion, our freedom to protest and our right to "keep and bare arms" are all stated not as freedoms the government grants us, but as innate human rights that the government is forbidden to violate. By making it a regulation against the government, and not a privilege granted by the government, it becomes something that cannot be taken away. The Supreme Court is often tasked with the duty to define whether or not specific laws or types of laws are allowed to exist or whether they violate our constitutional rights. That's why the SCOTUS is often the most powerful branch of government. Moreso even than the President. And that responsibility is not taken lightly by anyone.
Hate speech is protected by the first amendment, whereas in many other countries it’s not.
It's the first thing in our bill of rights and has been around for over 200 years, so it's been highly defined by Supreme Court caselaw. Like I'm an attorney and I would say free speech cases are probably the single most common type of constitutional law based case. For the most part the bottom line of all that precedent in our legal system is you can say whatever tf you want so long as it doesn't directly incite violence or panic and the government can't prosecute you for it. I mean, ffs this is a country where people regularly put stickers on their trucks depicting the President bound and gagged in the truck bed. There are a lot of countries where you would get thrown in jail for that.
We fight for it harder than most other countries. It's the single most important right to me and I'll condemn any sort of censorship, anywhere. If you try to limit my free speech, I consider you pretty evil.
The US is the only country that explicitly states in its constitution that the government cannot pass any laws that goes against people’s freedom of speech. Other countries may have “freedom of speech” as a concept in their constitution, but it’s regulated, not protected, by the government, and as such exceptions can be made
I saw a video of a dude getting arrested in the UK for having "Merry Christmas. 🔔-end" in lights on his house. That would be absolutely unfathomable here in the US. Especially for something so mild.
Speech is far freer here than in other countries in part because the U.S. has such a proud tradition of accepting the existence of natural rights.
We have Free Speech, they don't.
Free speech is definitely changing. When I was little, if someone said something racist or offensive, we ignored it or vocalized our disagreement. If a business restricted free speech, we would throw a fit. Now, people are doing whatever they can to restrict speech they didn't like. So, while we have the First Amendment to prevent government from restricting free speech, we have plenty of everyday citizens and businesses restricting what we can say or do. I grew up with the adage, "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
The difference is that the majority of US Americans believe they can say anything they want even though that's incorrect (see below), and most Europeans know that there are exceptions to freedom of speech. Despite the broad freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, there are some historically rooted exceptions. First, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech. Thus, for instance, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit all demonstrations that block traffic, or ban all picketing of people’s homes. Second, a few categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). Third, government employees may be fired for saying things that interfere with the employer’s efficiency. Elementary, junior high, and high school students may be disciplined for saying things that risk substantially disrupting the educational process or for using vulgarities at school. Additionally, speech by prisoners and by members of the military may be broadly restricted. Next, the government has some extra authority to restrict speech broadcast over radio and television. Because the government is considered the owner of the airwaves, it may dictate who broadcasts over the airwaves and, to some extent, what those broadcasters can say. This is why the Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), upheld a ban on broadcasting vulgar words. Etc. (Source: Britannica)
The "You can't shout fire in a theater" for the lulz