>First Amendment is one of America's finest and most resilient memes.
But it's only valid for US citizens. Other countries have rights that are valid for every human being.
"Human dignity is inviolable"
Didn't find that in the US constitution.
But it's only valid for US citizens. Other countries have rights that are valid for every human being.
"Human dignity is inviolable"
Didn't find that in the US constitution.
And most people in other countries are not aware.
I see how much money goes to American companies like Tesla meanwhile European companies like Mercedes-Benz get less investment and no media attention at all, even when they outperform their American counterparts.
We live in the age of the attention economy. I hope that advertising on the web is forbidden and we go back to good products over flashy newspaper press releases. Less memes more information.
That's not really because of American vs European, it's because traditional automaker vs EV disruptor. Tesla has a bigger market cap than all of the "big 3" US automakers combined.
The US Constitution is applicable to anyone within the jurisdiction of the US, regardless of citizenship or immigration status (including undocumented).
This is the first sentence of the "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Repu...
Absatz 1 (paragraph 1) (see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html):
> (1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.
> (1) Human dignity is inviolable. It is the duty of all state authorities [remark: "Gewalt" literally means "violence" in English] to respect and protect it.
So it's a lot.
Edit: The above is mistaken. A law can restrict the 1st Amendment, or any other, if it survives "strict scrutiny":
Although "strict scrutiny leaves few survivors" and will usually strike down such laws when strict scrutiny is found to apply, "the government must show that there is a compelling, or very strong, interest in law, and that the law is either narrowly tailored or is the least restrictive means available to the government."
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1966/strict-scrutin...
as you can see a couple of those are laws like CP and "Threatening the president"
Copyright laws do that.
There you have a bunch of examples. Free speech in the US is restricted. That's the point I was making. You can be okay with the restrictions in place but you cannot ignore that they're there. That's just factually wrong.
They're civil actions but it's the government through the courts that finds you guilty and imposes punishments, seizing assets, etc. It's very hard to win cases on those things as the judiciary does its best to still make it work within the structure of the constitution but it does nonetheless restrict my ability to say "viro eats kittens" without possible penalty imposed by the government.
For the law, the slave and the dictator both have dignity, and lower-rank laws will go into detail into what that entails up to the point the judicial system would need to establish if a certain act violates the dignity of a human or not: e.g., "can we kill a dictator nude in a public place and exhibit their remains at the entrance of the presidential palace?" Does it violate their dignity (even if we consider undeserved?)?
(1) Human dignity is inviolable. It is the duty of all state authorities to respect and protect it.
Presumably "state" here refers to Germany, yes?