The US doesn't have free speech. It just deluded itself into thinking its version of unfree speech is either somehow not speech, or just doesn't count for some dumb reason or another. There are many things you can't say in the USA.
The EU is just more upfront about its limitations. The EU says: Free speech is good, but some of it is dangerous so you can't have all of it, sorry. The US simply says: We have free speech. Then it arrests you for speaking anyway.
Find something you can't say in the US, and ask a (sufficiently educated) American about it. They'll tell you it's not really free speech or it doesn't count or some nonsense like that, and that America has free speech. A (sufficiently educated) European will tell you it's one of the exceptions.
Oh, it absolutely does. It's really the only country that I would say absolutely does.
No other country has free speech enshrined in it's constitution to the same extent, nor such a strong history of caselaw defending it. The US has a lot of problems, but as a people they are almost as zealous in defending free speech as they are in defending the 2nd amendment. In most other countries other concerns might take priority, but often and only in the US free speech will be the first consideration.
Please, go to your local town square and hand out flyers about your plot to assassinate the President. Report back with your results.
Oh, and I can predict your reply. You will tell me some excuse for why that isn't really speech, or it is speech but it shouldn't be free even in countries that have 100% free speech (which is a completely absurd argument, by the way - I must recommend you try the "that isn't speech" approach as at least that one isn't not an immediate formal contradiction).
> Please, go to your local town square and hand out flyers about your plot to assassinate the President. Report back with your results.
Ah, lol. I thought you might try something like this.
Yes, there are some exceptions, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater, but they generally don't count. They are not restrictions on anything you actually want to say or communicate, they are restrictions on causing a riot or disturbance.
The difference is in the US you can actually say anything you want to say to communicate any opinion or information you want. That isn't true in most other first world countries.
Just look at people getting arrested for protesting Charles' coronation in the UK, people all over Australia, NZ, Europe etc being arrested in pro Palestine (NOT pro Hamas) protests, people being arrested or facing legal issues for giving an opinion on something COVID related in countries other than the US..etc etc etc.
> Oh, and I can predict your reply.
Well, you made a disingenuous argument and were well aware that you did, so that isn't entirely surprising. However, I clarified the claim making that tired old fallacious response entirely irrelevant.
Ideological purity may wish otherwise, but there’s a meta-layer here: there are inevitable limits to “free speech” when said speech genuinely threatens the institution that otherwise allows free speech.
You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so. You are not free to share speech that’s been deemed classified. You are not free to conspire with foreign enemies. etc.
While the US does protect many forms of forms of political speech that are deemed impotent or that advocate radical position within the rubric of its institutions, it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies).
> You are not free to earnestly threaten president or call others to do so.
Because that's not speech, as in an opinion. It's a call to action. But you can speak all day long about how the president is useless and should be replaced. People in the UK couldn't even protest the coronation of Charles without facing arrest.
> it does have roughly much the same ultimate limitations as every other modern liberal democracy (and many modern non-democracies).
Simply not true. People get arrested for speech in other first world countries that would not happen in the US.
> It’s not actually very much of an outlier at all.
Calls to action are speech. When I open my mouth and words come out of it, that is speech. When I punch you in the face, that is not speech. When I tell someone else to punch you in the face, that is speech. When he punches you, that is not speech. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
If I'm not free to tell someone to punch you in the face, then I don't have absolute free speech.
Yes, technically, but come on now. You're being disingenuous.
Let's forgo the semantic bullshit which is a pretty shoddy attempt at making a point to begin with.
Instead of saying 'freedom of speech', since you want to be so technical, we can say 'freedom to express any opinion'. The USA has significantly more freedom for people to 'express any opinion' than other first world countries.
> I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
You're not making anything 'simple', you're making a disingenuous point to try and support an even more, forgive me, asinine point that isn't really correct except in a meaningless semantic way. You're ignoring the spirit of what is being discussed and acting like you've refuted a claim; you haven't even come close.
Why don't you actually try and address the claim made instead of playing silly semantic games in lieu of an argument?
Yes, and as generally used and meant, it means "freedom to express any opinion".
No one reasonable disagrees that you shouldn't be able to yell fire in a crowded theater. There have never been people advocating for that when they argue for free speech.
Pointing out there is a restriction on causing riots or disturbances to argue that there is not truly free speech is rather meaningless. It's a 'victory' only in the most technical sense, and not one worth recognizing considering how irrelevant it is to the actual discussion, which relates to "freedom to express any opinion".
Just to be clear, the claim is that the US has significantly more freedom to "express any opinion" than any other first world country does. In this context, "freedom to express any opinion" is generally referred to as "freedom of speech".
The EU is just more upfront about its limitations. The EU says: Free speech is good, but some of it is dangerous so you can't have all of it, sorry. The US simply says: We have free speech. Then it arrests you for speaking anyway.
Find something you can't say in the US, and ask a (sufficiently educated) American about it. They'll tell you it's not really free speech or it doesn't count or some nonsense like that, and that America has free speech. A (sufficiently educated) European will tell you it's one of the exceptions.