I read the links about "fighting words" but I still don't fully understand what they are. Is it possible to give one or two examples?

@undefined - They're poorly defined, much like your username. It refers to words that are viewed as a direct incitement to physical combat. Picture Old West gunslingers.

The age limit of 21 for alcohol is somewhat unusual internationally. Elsewhere, it’s often 18 or 16 (for some types of drinks).

@chirlu - I don't have time, but that could be edited into the drug section.

You might add something about access to voting: In most European democracies, voting is facilitated by an impartial government bureaucracy. It is uncontentious and routine. In the US it is highly politicised and in many cases there are contrived barriers that limit access to voting for certain demographic groups.

Voting rights for felons is another freedom the US doesn't guarantee.

FWIW, the age of consent isn't 18 nationwide (e.g. it's 16 in Ohio), it's 18 federally. This means that both sides have to be 18 if they want to meet each other across state borders. Federal child pornography laws also prohibit taking sexual pictures of someone under 18 generally, even if that person would be of consenting age in the state.

Also, something I'd place on this list - although the Constitution has a written protection from double jeopardy, the US' unique "dual-sovereignty" federal system means that someone can be tried and acquitted of a crime in federal jurisdiction, and then tried in state jurisdiction for crimes relating to the same set of facts, and vice versa.

One last thing - the fighting words doctrine may be modified or replaced by the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which allowed for prohibiting speech only if it is "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Relating that back to fighting words, the words would now probably have to be specifically provoking someone to commit a crime like fighting, not just be generally provocative.

Military operations on the countries soil are highly limited in Germany compared to the US. This might also fit to the list.

The consumption of (any!) drugs is legal in Germany due to the very first article of the Grundgesetz (constitution). Harming yourself (up to the point of suicide) must not be a punishable offence. Of course possession is quite illegal and yes, consumption without possession is possible.

There is also the protection of Sundays and holidays as days of rest (e.g. GG Art. 139 in Germany or this wikipedia article which gives most people the freedom to rest from work at least one day a week.

"which can be effectively indistinguishable for the end user" - uhhhh, it is a huge difference for the end user. With legalization people purchase drugs from a safe store in broad daylight. With decriminalisation you have to seek out a shady drug dealer. And in practice the US does have a lot of stores openly selling marijuana, in contrast to almost every other country.

I've always considered some articles of the US Flag Code to be a rather unusual restriction of one's freedom of what one can do with a piece of cloth.

Add suicide to your list as well. Still illegal in most US states, but legal in some countries.

@OscarBravo The "contentious" part is voter ID laws, which those European countries in fact all already have. Or did you have something else in mind?

@Schmuddi The U.S. Flag Code doesn't place any restrictions on you. It's purely advisory. You cannot be prosecuted for violating the Flag Code. Whether you abide by it or not is totally optional. There is a separate law called the Flag Protection Act that did impose some restrictions for things like burning the flag, but it was almost immediately declared unconstitutional and, thus, unenforceable in United States v. Eichman, 1990.

@curiousdanii - I don't think voting qualifies, so I didn't include it. Voter suppression in the US these days is mostly the failure or refusal of the government to provide sufficient voting resources to its citizens. In that sense it's much more analogous to the "freedom from hunger" that I mentioned at the beginning of the question. Voter ID laws would qualify, I suppose, but they're not the main kind of voter suppression imo.

@JonathanReez - That's fair. But since I'm talking about the freedom to do something (in this case use or carry drugs), I'm not talking directly about the freedom to sell drugs or their availability.

@curiousdanii - Oh, your comment is an interesting case. Yes, if convicted felons can be punished for voting or denied access to a voting center it would certainly qualify by my criteria.

Good list, but that last item of freedom to practice discrimination seems like the odd man out because it renders what would otherwise be the more numerous pool of prospective tenants less free.

@agc - That's another way of looking at it. The definition of freedom can get a bit tricky. Is it limiting the freedom of movement of someone to prevent them from staying in a house if they want to? Yes, probably.

Drinking alcohol in public places.

@Obie2.0, Public two-way streets provide a good example of what are sometimes called constructive freedoms. Drivers are prohibited from driving the wrong way, (less free?), but gain greater speed and fewer collisions, (more free). So drivers gain more freedom than they lose.

@agc - You're using a different definition than the one in my question, one that encompasses freedom "from" negative things, which I explicitly am not treating since I think it encompasses almost anything that can be viewed as beneficial, making "freedom" equivalent to "societal benefit" I do have some doubts about the discrimination instance, but they seem to be different from yours, involving the idea that a discriminatory business owner often is invoking the law to restrict freedom of movement.

@Obie2.0, I meant to illustrate with an unambiguous example how at least some contrary freedoms can be weighed against each other. The implication would be that while discriminatory renting might benefit landlords, it's usually a net loss in a nation's domestic freedom. On freedom of movement, Magnus Wittstrom's answer partially addresses that.

@agc - I would view it slightly differently. More that discriminatory renting is a case of a freedom that results in a net loss in the domestic well-being of society. But I put what I, at least, consider some of the countervailing freedoms in the case of housing and business discrimination in the question (namely, housing discrimination is an additional restriction on the freedom of someone to be in whatever place they choose).

It's funny to see freedom of immigration immediately followed by freedom of discrimination.

@KodosJohnson - Some people definitely dispute that the latter constitutes a freedom (see the comments), and I think there are some points against it being so, which I mentioned in the answer. But as I mentioned, this answer is far from only having freedoms that I think are harmless: racial, religious, and gender discrimination in housing and businesses being a prime example.

@KodosJohnson there's the classic example "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" - and in this regard, you may have the freedom to swing your fists freely, or you may have the freedom to have your nose intact, but not both - gaining one requires removing the other, and each scenario has a "freedom" that may be considered useful to someone. E.g. a lot of people were very angry about losing the freedom/right/ability to hold slaves, angry enough to go to war for it.

Just saying: You can't drive "as fast as you want" on a German motorway. Only about half of the motorway network has no speed limit, but you must limit your speed to what is safe based on road conditions, weather, traffic, and your own abilities. You also must be prepared for other drivers to make mistakes and drive accordingly. And any accident at over 80mph is your fault unless you can prove it would have happened at a lower speed as well.

@gnasher729 - That's why I specifically said both "the Autobahn" and "most portions," as well as mentioning liability.

You're wrong about the age of consent FYI, I believe it is actually like 14 or 15 federally but every state has laws over that. Some as low as 16, I believe it is 17 in more states than 18 though.

@Jesse_b - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

@Obie2.0: I'm not sure what you're trying to point out but that is all about sexual images and transporting minors. It does make mention that the federal age of consent is 12 if the other person is 15 or younger and 16 otherwise in a roundabout way.

Yes, because that's when federal laws rather than state laws come into effect.

@Obie2.0: Those are not laws about age of consent though. The federal age of consent is apparently 16 and the majority of states is also 16

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Also for alcohol--In the vast majority of the US you can't drink in public. In a place like Japan, you can buy a beer and have a leisurely stroll in the park while drinking. It certainly makes Japan feel more free...

Another right in Germany allows everyone to enter the forest for recreational uses, even if the forest is privately owned. This is stated in §14 Bundeswaldgesetz (Federal Forest Law) "(1) Das Betreten des Waldes zum Zwecke der Erholung ist gestattet." ((1) Entering the forest for recreational purposes is permitted.) gesetze-im-internet.de/bwaldg/__14.html is also mentioned here de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betretungsrecht_%28Erholung,_Sport%29 In the U.S. entering a privately owned forest would count as trespassing.

Hi, just a random sidebar visitor here. I would add the Freedom to roam which is fairly common in Europe --- conversely, it implies not being free to exclude others from one's land, but given that it's explicitly called a freedom it counts in my opinion.

As the article shows some countries like the Nordics extend the right to roam to picking berries, limited fishing and camping, etc. So "freedom to enjoy nature" regardless of who owns the land.

Now I notice i's in the second answer :-)

@Adamant The basic gist of "fighting words" is saying something so offensive to another person that they are likely to feel compelled to attack you (likely with the intent of inducing them to attack you). Probably the most worldwide culturally-understood example might be calling someone's mother a prostitute (but using cruder language than I did here).

Its sort of a personal version of inciting a riot (which is also not protected speech in the USA)

@T.E.D. Thanks, I already knew that but the info is helpful