Freedom of speech is uniquely American. The criminalization of opinions and other pseudo-offensive statements in many other countries (ex. "hate speech") are perfectly legal in the US. The now deleted comment string attached to the original question highlighted exactly how American free speech ...
Incorrect, the supreme court has identified a number of limitations to the free speech of Americans. A number of these limitations would be illegal in my own country.
You're not incorrect that these cases would be protected speech. You're incorrect that "the free speech guarantees afforded to all people in the US are unmatched"
@acpilot You are incorrect in your conclusion that "the free speech guarantees afforded to all people in the US are unmatched" - there are plenty of countries with similar free speech guarantees. The US has, just like most other countries, limitations on its free speech protection. There is nothing fundamentally unique about that part of american legislature.
Let's cut to the chase. I'll draft a tweet that you post to your national law enforcement agency and that I will post to the FBI's feed. Let's see who gets arrested first. Ground rules are that there will no threats of violence to an individual or group of people and no outright slanderous or false statements.
Don't make so many assumptions. Just because hate speech laws exist in Europe and not the US does not mean you can assume that you'll automatically be arrested for violating them. Katie Hopkins and Björn Höcke haven't been arrested, after all.
@acpilot If you are arguing that "the free speech guarantees [...] in the US are unmatched" by supplying examples of speech that is illegal in other countries but not the US, then surely you must agree that examples of speech that is illegal in the US but not other countries would disprove it? An example would be obscenity which is perfectly lawful in most western countries. As mentioned earlier, there is nothing fundamentally unique about this part of US legislature - just like other countries it has limitations. They may/may not exactly equal those of other countries but are not "unmatched".
A NOTE TO DOWNVOTERS: please base your vote on whether this post actually answers the question, and not on whether you personally agree with the criminalization of the listed examples in other countries.
@Birjolaxew those limitations are in the sense of something which causes immediate harm (like shouting "fire!" in a crowded place and causing a stampede), while most other countries can criminally charge you for merely expressing an opinion someone else finds offensive. Other cases you might brush under "limitations" (like slander) are civil cases: if you feel someone caused you harm by stating an untrue statement about you, you can sue for recuperating the damages. But it's not the same as the police arresting the slanderer without your involvement, because they happen to notice the slander.
@vsz So now the discussion of the thread becomes "Americans defend the free speech they think should be defended as well as limitations they find self-evident". That's just cartoonish American Exceptionalism at work.
@DonFusili : No, it doesn't. The question was very clear: "does the US guarantee any unique freedom?" And the answer states just that. The US guarantees that you will not be criminally prosecuted for any speech except if it causes immediate bodily harm. But it seems you are turning this into an ideological battle. Just because you personally don't like that some statements which are illegal elsewhere are not illegal in the US, doesn't make the answer wrong. You seem to fight the answerer automatically based on the ideological views you assume about him/her, and sadly, the voters do so as well.
@vsz I wouldn't know what the answerer's ideology is, and I don't care. The answer does indeed state that the US guarantees an exceptional freedom of speech and as such answers the question. The fact that some statements which are legal elsewhere are illegal in the US contradicts this (hint, that's the opposite of what you say I have an issue with). As such, the answer is incorrect. When confronted with these illegalities under US laws, both you and the answerer countered with "well of course those things should be illegal". (cont.)
@vsz (cont.) So if there are things that are illegal in the US, but legal elsewhere and these things are seen as self-evident by Americans, how exactly is the US guarantee of free speech unmatched, except under the lens of American Exceptionalism?
@DonFusili : "The fact that some statements which are legal elsewhere are illegal in the US contradicts this" - why should it contradict this? The question was not "is everything more free in the USA?", but if there are some freedoms not found elsewhere. So, the question "do striped cats exist?" can be answered as "yes" if you can find at least one striped cat. Finding a non-striped cat doesn't contradict the answer, because it wasn't "all cats are striped". (by the way, on what statements were you thinking which are illegal in the USA and legal in other democracies?)
It's possibly accurate that the American system places political speech on a pedestal higher than many other Western countries in terms of its legal protection, as evidenced by the answer, but I haven't categorically researched every country.
And yes, this answer has some issues, and when I'll have the time I'll write an answer which addresses those problems, but still, the furry of downvotes is a clear indicator that people are ideologically driven when evaluating answers. Does an answer state a true fact about a law, but you don't like that law? Downote it to express disagreement with that law! Sadly, this behavior is all to common on this site. Many blatantly and provably wrong statements on this site don't get this amount of attack and scrutiny as the ones accumulated by this answer.
@vsz You have a different understanding of the word unique than me, I guess. Because protection of free speech as written in US law is not unique or special in the western world. For specific examples, the wiki was linked with limitations on free speech in the US. Just from that list: Obscenity, False Advertising and Child Pornography are illegal in the US and not in all other countries in the world.
@vsz The conclusion of this answer is "The free speech guarantees afforded to all people in the US are unmatched." - that is completely unsubstantiated in either answer or comments. Some countries outlaw some things that would be legal in the US - but to go from there to the conclusion of this answer is quite a leap which is not logically sound. In other words the answer is incorrect. Thus the downvotes. It has nothing to do with disagreement with the law.
@vsz then please edit your answer to define exactly and narrowly what "speech" is as considered by you. Without that constraints it's just objectively false.
@DonFusili I sense that you are trying to use "American Exceptionalism" as some kind of negative term, maybe even an insult. I do not believe that is a negative term and actually take a great deal of pride in what the US is, on the whole.
Regarding your edit: The question is "Are there any freedoms that are unique to either the United States or the North American continent?" If you mention anything that is illegal in some countries, that's not a valid answer. You need something that is not allowed in all other countries to make it unique!
@acpilot You sense wrongly. While I personally don't understand or feel patriotism and the likes, it is a valid point of view. The problem here is that it stops you from recognizing that the US does not, in fact, protect free speech more than other western countries. You take the current limitations in the US as self-evident (thus not perceiving them as limitations), while the limitations placed in other countries are unacceptable. I believe you believe this answer is correct, but it only seems so because of a lack of distance.
@Josef is you expectation that I provide one single, neat, clean example of a single scenario that incorporates a speech crime from every nation except the US? I think my example covered a lot of bases. Criticism of the government or politicians is illegal in some places. Displaying a swastika is illegal in others. Still more criminalize HateSpeech® against minorities. Openly displaying weapons, especially semiautomatic pistols, is a crime in many places. Like I said, if I missed a jurisdiction I am happy to cook up another example.
I have identified examples highlighting the superiority of American free speech rights. You ask for a single universally correct example of America vs. The World knowing full well that is not the ask of OP. OP asked for examples of "freedoms that are unique to the US," not a single universally correct example of the US vs The World. I have provided an answer that objectively states and supports with examples and comparisons why America's First Amendment is unique.
@acpilot The definition of unique is: "being without a like or equal" or "able to be distinguished from all others of its class or type" So if you want to prove that a freedom is unique you have to show it doesn't exist anywhere else!
@vsz The meaning of a downvote is “This answer is not useful”. That can mean that it is not an attempt at an answer (though in that case, the correct action is to flag for deletion as “not an answer”), but it can also mean that it is incorrect, misleading, or hopelessly biased (among other reasons). The fact that the answer begins with a statement that many find blatantly incorrect is more than enough to justify downvotes. If one wants to avoid downvotes on an extraordinary statement like this, they need to take much more care to justify and support their claims.
@divibisan : ... or to be leaning towards a particular ideology which seems to be over-represented on this site. Then it will get a lot of upvotes even if it's trivially proven to be false, or if all it contains is a rant against the opposing major ideology.
@vsz I’m getting pretty tired of this constant conservative victim narrative – especially since this isn’t even a right-wing position! The US definitely has stronger free speech protections than many countries, but it also has many restrictions. Saying "Freedom of speech is uniquely American” is an extraordinary claim and if one wants to convince people of that, they need to argue for it and convince people of it.
I certainly don't feel like a victim nor do I see a victim narrative playing out. The US is objectively the most free country as far as speech is concerned. It's a simple fact and it's absurd to say otherwise.
@DonFusili the statement that speech is not protected in the US as it is in other countries is correct. It has MORE protection and in the US and is as close to a sacred right as a secular nation can have. Your assertion that other western countries can claim to protect speech just as the US does (or better) is demonstrably false. Reference my answer for examples. Would you like me to add more?
@acpilot I’m glad you don’t feel like a victim! I wasn’t referring to you there – just vsz’s comment which certainly did claim that this answer was the victim of an unfair ideological bias. You make a good point, and I think that in many ways you’re right, but it’s the absolutism in your answer that many people dislike. Even if the US has the freest speech, to say it’s the only country with free speech is to define free speech in an arbitrary way. You’d earn my upvote if you identified specific kinds of free speech that were unique to the US. This is just my opinion – use or ignore it freely
I hate arrogance. I really do. Except when the arrogant person is right. My answer is meant to be an absolute. Freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought, must be an absolute. There is no sliding scale and no true freedom without freedom of speech and thought despite how "free" a person may feel. Note that I am not saying we have unfettered free speech but the First Amendment (and legal precedents) is about as free as it gets while still keeping fighting words and slander in check.
@divibisan : before you get so much worked up upon your narrative, please note two things: #1. I've not even written an answer yet, so what answer are you talkign about? I only commented on the huge zeal of how many people attacked this answer like vultures, a thing not often seen even in case of much worse answers. #2. You are the first to mention the word "conservative" in this debate.
Per this wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… "Unlike what has been called a strong international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law and that such prohibitions override, or are irrelevant to, guarantees of freedom of expression, the United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law, some hate speech is protected."
@acpilot I totally agree with that. But as you say, we don’t have fully unfettered free speech in the US. So, in my opinion, to say that the US is the only country with free speech requires us to come up with a definition for “free speech” that is stricter than other countries, but not absolute, which seems arbitrary to me. If you said that "free speech protections are uniquely strong in the US” or “the US has unique protections for hate speech/slander/etc.” then I’d fully agree with you. It’s the argument that other countries don’t have free speech that I disagree with
@acpilot Note that defining free speech as what the US has is exactly equivalent to "uniquely strong," which is how I was reading this answer from the outset.
@vsz. No. I do not vote only on accuracy. I also vote on tone. This "answer" is needlessly aggressive, and earned a downvote for that. It's also not entirely accurate, as others have pointed out.
The argument is a tautology. US free speech is the only one that has the exact combination of freedoms and limitations, therefore as a whole it is unique. The problem is the exact same argument can be applied to any country. No two countries have identical laws, therefore every country's laws produce a "unique" freedom.
@barbecue. We all understand the spirit in which the question was asked. OP is asking not about a combination of freedoms, but which freedoms are remarkable in their lack of restriction. American freedom of speech is remarkable in that regard.
@acpilot I agree that we have an unusual level of freedom of speech, with regard to certain specific types of speech. But to be unique, it must be not just remarkable, but completely without any similar alternative. The problem is, the "unique" combination of freedoms in the US is only unique in the way that fingerprints are unique. There may not be one that's exactly the same, but there are many that are very similar. There are some forms of expression that will get you arrested in the US, but not in other countries.
"The notion that one can be arrested (or even detained for questioning) for any one if these "crimes" is revolting to an American." is hyperbolic and incorrect. The answer would be stronger without this line.
@acpilot I don't object to the strength of the sentiment, but the universality of it. I believe you do find it "revolting" (or worse), but you can't speak for all Americans.
Something missing in this discussion is focus on the word "guarantee". There are many things legal in other countries which may be illegal in the US, but is there anything that necessarily prevents the governments of those countries from outlawing them? Saying "obscenity is illegal in the US, but allowed in country X" says nothing about whether or not the government of country X could ban obscenity if they wanted. In the US, there can be no speech restrictions beyond what's there already. Saying "Islam is evil" or "the president is a jackass" cannot be criminalized.
Since you didn't single out freedom of religion, the rest of the first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government;” for comparison the Constitution of Japan guarantees “Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.” Downvoting.
@CR_Drost Japan passed anti-free speech legislation in 2016. Here: upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/05/24/…. Tell me again about that "guarantee." Let's revisit that downvote, shall we?
As I said in a comment to another answer: blasphemy is still an offense in many states, while I know that it governed by freedom of speech in my country. So how is this "unique" freedom - when other countries have at other parts "more freedom of speech". - It's a too broad subject to be unique.
And until recently you had to fire you pistol in the air before crossing the street in one western town. We can cook up all kinds of stupid unenforceable technicalities but, at the end of the day, the US free speech rights are superior to all others in terms of actual guaranteed freedom of speech. My twitter offer stands if anyone if interested in taking the risk.
@BenBarden technically correct, but the statement is clearly meant as a generalization. You can find at least one person from any country who feels the same, so while technically correct the statement adds no substance as you interpret it.
@acpilot wrt Japan 2016 legislation "But the bill does not have clauses that are binding. Critics have said the legislation is mostly philosophical, according to the report." Not saying you're wrong overall, but if you're right, it's not that particular bill making you right.
A uniquely American freedom would be one that does not exist in any other country, but you merely cite examples of things that are illegal in some (or one) other countries. All of these are also legal in some (in most cases, many) other countries. The U.S. does have strong protection of freedom of speech, and there might be a significant specific freedom within it that is unique, but you haven't identified one.
Ah, the "utter tosh" guy. It's been said already that we do not have unfettered free speech, but the law is constructed in such a way to minimize the effect of regulation on speech and thought. I think future challenges to some of the listed restrictions will win, however, and further broaden the scope of 1A. I hope so, anyway.
@immibis Most of that list falls into two categories. One is just statements that are flat out wrong. The other is things that may seem like they are speech but aren't really. For example, I cannot say, "I will pay you a million dollars to kill my boss" and that seems like a restriction on speech because it's something I can't say, but it's not. There is no fact I cannot communicate nor any argument I cannot make or the like. It's a restriction on conduct or function that happens to restrict speech where it functions as conduct or the like.
@DavidSchwartz They are absolutely restrictions on speech. If you're American, you just don't see them as such because you're conditioned not to. Restricting you from making false statements on fact is literally a restriction on speech; restricting you from making illegal contracts verbally is literally a restriction on speech; restricting you from incitement is literally a restriction on speech.
Discussion on answer by acpilot: Does…
Discussion on answer by acpilot: Does…