Is it really similar to the First Amendment if it's a qualified right? The First Amendment (along with the rest of the US consitutional rights) seems very absolute.

@user253751 I'm by no means an expert on the American Constitution, but are you sure the 1st Amendment is absolute? Wikipedia suggests otherwise.

It might be worth adding that "Article 10" and "ECHR" both refer to the European Convention on Human Rights.

@608 The courts haven't always sided with qualifications. See here for details: law.stackexchange.com/questions/60247/… tl;dr SCOTUS found that Nazis marching in uniform through a jewish neighborhood, and religious extremists shouting at funerals that the deceased is burning in Hell are protected speech. I can't imagine either of these would be allowed in the UK. I mean consider they called teaching a dog the Nazi salute a crime. 1A is clearly stronger than UK's protections.

@Ryan_L I had thoughts to talk about the sticky code "for the protection of health or morals" presents, but exceptions to any "always" can always be found.

There are limits to the right in the US as well though. Specifically speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" is currently considered to not be protected.

@T.E.D. the bar in the US is far higher than any other country I'm aware of. So while there are limits, they are very strictly limited.

@Jeremy - That sounds correct to me (haven't looked into if its true, but it sounds correct). But the point of the comment is that's the kind of line an answer should be taking, rather than providing absolutist arguments about rights vs. qualified rights.

@608 Slander is not a crime in the U.S. It's a civil cause of action (i.e. the person/entity you slander can sue you for damages,) but it is not an offense that can be prosecuted by the government (criminal or otherwise.)

@reirab Yes, but my point is that a defense based on 1A rights won't get you far.

@608 1A won't get you far in any circumstance in a civil case. It's only a limitation on the government, not private 3rd parties.

@T.E.D. That’s not a limit on speech though. That’s like saying murder infringes on free speech because you murdered someone as an expression of your artistic free expression. Free expression doesn’t trump other laws like incitement, sedition, asking someone to kill somebody, etc. the point where speech changes to a call or action it’s not just speech anymore, it’s action.

@Taekahn - The fact that it doesn't trump some other laws a legislature might chose to pass literally means its limited.

@T.E.D. Disagree. Aa I said. One Is an actual limit on speech. One is a limit on actions. If you can’t see the difference between the two I’m not sure there are any words to illuminate you.

@reirab This pedantry is silly. My point is 1A won't protect you from making bad speech, slander and the like included. On a question that assumes the 1A is so liberal, almost carte blanche in permissiveness, it seems a perfectly appropriate comment that doesn't need specifics.

@608 It absolutely will protect you from the government fining you or throwing you in prison for slander. It just won't protect you from the party you slandered suing you in civil court. The difference between civil lawsuits and criminal law is hardly pedantry. Courts in the U.S. absolutely do not side with most of the exclusions listed in this answer from the U.K. Human Rights Act. There are indeed some exclusions, but they're quite a bit more narrow than what's listed here and quite strict legal limits are placed on any such exclusions.

@T.E.D. because speech can be both speech and something else too. When you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the speech part is protected, the "trying to cause fear and panic" part is not. If you waved a fake gun around that would be the same "trying to cause panic", but would not be speech.

@reirab Well, you're wrong now too. Criminal defamation may be waning in the last century, but it very much is still a thing, and there have been recent successful prosecutions. A good write up. And yes, when my first comment regards a 10 foot high context and you come in with a 10 mile high context, going "ackshually", it's very much like a pedant. I know it's a law site, but really, give it a rest.

Regarding your assertion, "Courts in the U.S. absolutely do not side with most of the exclusions", I disagree. The exclusions I'm reading are "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary". If your speech in the USA offends those things I think you often find legal consequences for it.

Yet this isn't codified with 1A at all. There's just this little blip in the constitution, no exceptions, but I see the quotes here in this answer hardly at all in contrast with the legal practice in the states. This was my initial point.

@user253751 The restrictions on speech in the U.S. are perhaps wider and far more common than you think. Try to sell a 250 ml bottle of a soft drink that has "350 ml" printed on it, or "Coca-Cola," and you'll quickly find out that there are laws specifically abridging your right to publish those words in that way.

@608 Donald Trump is apparently allowed to incite riots.