Freedom of speech in the US is probably the most misunderstood right of US citizens. There are quite a few laws banning certain kinds of speech - e.g. inciting violence or causing panics. It doesn't differ all that much from many European countries, once you get into the details. You might want to read up on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Possible duplicate of Does the United States guarantee any unique freedoms?

@vsz it's not quite a duplicate, but I would say the tremendous list at politics.stackexchange.com/questions/43535/… should be referenced.

The US still has blasphemy laws in some states.

The U.S. first amendment also encompasses freedom of the press. It is also primarily meant to protect political speech, and certain supreme court decisions have made libel an extremely hard case to make against the press by any "public" figures.

One big difference between the USA 1A and most European countries is "hate speech". This is speech intended to whip up hatred against a specific group without explicitly calling for violence. In the USA this is considered protected political speech. In most EU countries it is against the law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

@user Are they enforced blasphemy laws? There's lots of laws still on the books that nobody enforces anymore, that you see amusing lists of every now and then (e.g. in certain places, if you encounter a horse while driving, you must by law disassemble your car and hide it in the grass until the horse passes to avoid panicking it), but I doubt that anybody in the US today is being fined or jailed for taking the Lord's name in vain or anything like that. (Unless you're disturbing the peace or some other non-religious offense.)

@DarrelHoffman I seem to recall someone wanted to register a company with the word "hell" in the name, and was refused on blasphemy grounds.

@DarrelHoffman as I recall blasphemy was specifically cited as the reason.

@user It's likely that either you're remembering wrong or it wasn't blasphemy in the legal sense. Normally refusals of trademarks or registration for "offensive" things is just done on the idea that the registration is government speech, and they can't be forced to say things they don't want to, unless otherwise obliged. Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti have ripped that to shreds in the last few years.

Are we talking about "specifically in the UK" or "Europeans"? The UK at the moment is very different to most of Europe in how freedom of speech is being enforced, as there is much suppression of less mainstream sentiment because of Brexit and other friction at the moment. Further, the UK seems these days much more to be under the influence of US-driven media.

@gormadoc found it, it was "I Choose Hell Productions". Eventually the law was ruled unconstitutional.

The restrictions often cited on broadcast television exist because those frequencies are considered "public" frequencies owned by the United States government, and they license those frequencies to media companies with the understanding that they will follow a "code of conduct." This allows them to place minor restrictions on content which is considered to have no value as political or artistic speech ("dirty" words) since they think the general public doesn't want that. People can say whatever they want elsewhere (like, cable channels). It's more like littering in a national park.

@Morfildur- The laws in the U.S. against "inciting violence" are very, VERY hard to satisfy. Under SCOTUS precedent, you can only ban incitement of "imminent," "lawless" actions, a la "let's all riot at Main Square in two hours," and not "let's kill all X people." They aren't comparable at all to European laws.

Comparing laws across countries is very difficult. US follows a common law system, but many countries (e.g. most of continental Europe) don't. This means that what being legal means and how this meaning is determined vary in subtle way from one country to one other. Thus the question might be answered for concrete examples, but surely not in general terms, especially since the circumstances of one speech may change its legality.

If getting sued for telling someone you honest opinion is freedom, then the US is the most free contry in the world. I live in a country where lawsuits are almost none existing because people accept that they make mistakes. I know they are just stories but having to put warnings on an oven, not to dry you pet in them and people winning lawsuits for spilling coffie because they placed it on the dashboard in the car and it fell when they accelerate and they were not told, not to do so, is not my idea of freedom. Whre I live you can almost say what you want, to whom you want, with no implications

Interesting perspective. Over here in the UK we get the impression that in the US, if you mention in a pub that your neighbour is overweight, you are likely to get sued for libel.

This summarizes freedom of speech per country, maybe you could give it a read and it would give you ideas for a specific difference you want to address in your question? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

If you stood up in public in the US and expressed your love for ISIS, for example, you will find that you have very little freedom of speech in practice.

Try expressing yourself to a police officer in America and see how meaningless the 1st Amendment is

You explicitly stated "I do not consider incitement to violence free speech" yet the top answers and the top comment under your Q state "incitement to violence, supporting ISIS, causing panic is not free speech". You could edit your post and bold that part out, to reduce the strawman arguments.