Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law.
In reality, any country can abuse it's position, but in regards the internet it doesn't really appear that it has ever happened. This is very much change for change sake without any real benefit to be seen.
That statement is so absurd that this can only be Poe's law in effect. Freedom of Speech is a requirement for a functioning democracy, and consequently plenty of countries have freedom of speech codified into law.
Of course different countries limit this freedom differently. In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire, or "I just got a national security letter" if there is a national security letter. In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened" or "Kill all muslims". But within reasonable bounds both countries guarantee freedom of speech.
[0]: https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...
> In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened"
This is a legitimate example of why Germany does not have freedom of speech. Regardless of how verifiable the Holocaust is or how offensive it is to deny that it happened, disagreeing with the government's version of history should not be a crime in a free society.
> In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire
A fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to fire warnings.
>"Kill all muslims"
A specific incitement of violence.
> "I just got a national security letter"
I don't like that this is illegal either, but it's a far cry from making it illegal to express certain opinions. And at least there's a fair amount of disagreement within the US as to whether it should be illegal, different jurisdictions have taken either side of this issue.
The NPD by the way is to this day allowed in Germany, they are just not allowed to openly demand the violent parts of Nazism, because denying the Holocaust is a fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to the sanctity of life.
Setting aside other exceptions, like liable, the rule in AngloAmerican law concerns inciting or otherwise causing imminent harm. What constitutes imminent harm has varied widely over the course of U.S. history. Many people were sentenced by courts under the Alien & Sedition Acts, the argument being that seditious speech _might_ lead to imminent harm. The same things happened over 120 years later when people handing out anarchist and communist leaflets were regularly thrown in jail with even less pushback by society.
These days the interpretation and application of imminent harm is much narrower than it has ever been, and indisputably ahistorical. The conception of free speech that Americans enjoy today didn't exist for most of the history of the country and likely most of the history of the world.
In the context of Germany's history, it's not obvious to me (and shouldn't be obvious to anybody who gives it serious consideration) that their standard is intrinsically, objectively inferior.
I happen to disagree with it, but I don't think it's unreasonable on its face. And I'll be the first to admit that my preference for the modern, American conception is largely a function of my being an American and having internalized certain normative judgments unique to not just this country, but unique to the post-WWII political and legal context and in many respects unique to the past couple of generations.
Even China has "freedom of speech" coded in their constitution. Granted, many of the countries with "free speech" in the books don't actually have it in practice, but that doesn't validate your claim.
This of course wouldn't stop the practical removal of said freedoms by a despotic regime, but as a philosophical point, I find it interesting, and it has mattered in court rulings in the past.
Let China be in charge of the Internet for awhile. Or even France or Germany.
They actually go after people for their ideas -- not just their actions.
Yeah, I fled oppression in Canada to come to the only country with FREEDOM! MURICA! YEAH!
What?? America's freedom of speech protections are strong and admirable, but this is surely an empty claim that you are unable and unwilling to defend.
Britain, Canada, the EU and Japan all have Hate Speech laws. Hate speech laws are laws restricting speech for being nothing more than speech.
As another user points out, the limits placed on our free speech are all directly related to actions that can harm other people. Like yelling fire in a crowded theater. That can/will result in a stampede which will hurt or even kill other people. It isn't limiting what you're saying because it's some dislike political opinion, it's limiting what you can say so you don't kill people. There's a huge, huge difference.
Most other countries have similar limits on free speech. The U.S limits aren't of political origins, but actual physical safety. And I think that makes a world of difference.
What about laws like the Communism Control Act?
The U.S doesn't enforce most of its obscenity clauses. With the exception of Child pornography, etc... And if you're asking what harm does that cause, well, it harms the kid getting sexually abused. Most of the obscenity laws are related to minors. Either in the the consumption of pornography or production.
> Communism Control Act
What about it? It's irrelevant here. In fact, anything that hasn't been challenged in the supreme court is irrelevant because the supreme court is the law of the land, not local, city or state governments. Per wikipedia: "the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century." It's quite obvious which way they'd rule if it were to be challenged, as even lower courts in NY ruled against it in the 70s.
And I think that's the most important thing here; In germany, for example, you can't challenge their free speech law regarding the holocaust. It's set in stone. In the U.S, unless the supreme court has ruled on it, it is not set in stone. And the supreme court of the U.S has an incredibly good track record when it comes to defending our freedoms. Sure, it's laid a couple stinkers here and there, but 99% of the time, its ruling is favorable towards those who value freedom, liberty and independence. It's kept us from fascism and helped keep us from turning into a theocracy.
Wrong. We have the constitutional court (essentially the US supreme court equivalent) and since the holocaust denial law is not part of the constitution, but freedom of opinion is, all the same arguments you presented about the US laws works just as well for Germany.
And in my opinion our constitutional court has an even better track record of defending our freedom than the US supreme court (from the rulings I hear about on this side of the pond).
And before you reply "that's what schools are for"; what difference does it make whether a body of beliefs is government-sanctioned and taught in schools or "merely" treated as a respectable opinion in the public square? A naive kid may have their opinion swayed just as strongly, if not more, by a street cultist preacher than by an overworked, burned-out schoolteacher. Would you be okay with Scientology being taught in schools? I assume not. Would you be okay with Scientologists luring children into a camp five metres away from a school? Fifty metres? Five hundred? At what point does it stop being harmful enough to be worth prohibiting? I don't think there is any.
I would rather live in Germany than in the United States, and one of the main reasons is precisely this kind of free speech absolutism.