3 ms·

> for the protection of health or morals The 1st amendment has a similar set of exceptions (morals: [1, 2]; health: [3, 4]). > preventing the disclosure of in

> for the protection of health or morals The 1st amendment has a similar set of exceptions (morals: [1, 2]; health: [3, 4]). > preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence Several of the exceptions discussed in [5] apply here. Some speech about non-gov't secrets is also not protected by the 1st. Two examples include anything the court decides is not of public interest (e.g., DeCSS), and publication of recordings or transcriptions without prior consent (in some states). And then there's the most obvious historical exception to the First Amendment: being too dark in any century except this one. The differences between the EU and the US are much more attributable to political culture. The massive and obvious failures of the First Amendment's protections in previous centuries demonstrate that the constitutional text itself plays only a small role; the political culture that ultimately interprets the text is also important. Mistaking the First Amendment for a permanent, carte blanc, or unambiguous license to free speech willfully ignores the fact that the force of the document is inseparable from the political and governmental culture entrusted with its care, and that ALL current and previous political cultures have interpreted the First Amendment in a way that DOES restrict speech for "the protection of health or morals". and for "preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence". It is the degree to which these tradeoffs are made, not the mere existence of the tradeoffs, that differentiates the First Amendment from Article 10. And to see how those tradeoffs are made, you have to go beyond the text and delve into case law. -- [1] https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/ObscenityFirstAmendment.htm https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words_and_offensive_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Restrictions_based_on_special_capacity_of_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

anothergoogler 8y ago
IANACL, but the language of the US' constitution's first amendment has no such exceptions. The conditionality of the right in the EU convention practically makes it a dead letter, and this is borne by the way EU states play fast and loose with freedom of expression. Comparatively, the right is sacred in the US. Which is part of why most transgressions involve the judicial branch heavily, the exceptions get their own page on Wikipedia.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > but the language of the US' constitution's first amendment has no such exceptions None-the-less, those exceptions do exist! > Comparatively, the right is sacred in the US I argue this is much more a result of political/governmental culture than the letter of the constitutional law. I.e., we could swap the text of the First Amendment with the text of Article 10 and speech in the US would still be freer on average. I believe this because it turns out all of the categories of speech not protected by Article 10 are also not protected by the First Amendment (there are differences, but those differences are matters of boundary rather than category; concretely, Article 10 could be interpreted in a way that's congruent with the current interpretation of the First Amendment). > Which is part of why most transgressions involve the judicial branch heavily, the exceptions get their own page on Wikipedia. The thesis that pithier speech protections and less explicit exceptions result in judges more jealously guarding speech is an interesting legal theory. IMO it's much more likely that these differences are attributable to political culture and national ethos.
  - friedman23 8y ago
    >None-the-less, those exceptions do exist! In the US you can say practically anything anywhere and have no fear of getting arrested. That is not the case in the EU.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      What was the business with the "free speech zones", anyway?
    - deleted 8y ago

anothergoogler 8y ago

IANACL, but the language of the US' constitution's first amendment has no such exceptions. The conditionality of the right in the EU convention practically makes it a dead letter, and this is borne by the way EU states play fast and loose with freedom of expression. Comparatively, the right is sacred in the US. Which is part of why most transgressions involve the judicial branch heavily, the exceptions get their own page on Wikipedia.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> but the language of the US' constitution's first amendment has no such exceptions None-the-less, those exceptions do exist! > Comparatively, the right is sacred in the US I argue this is much more a result of political/governmental culture than the letter of the constitutional law. I.e., we could swap the text of the First Amendment with the text of Article 10 and speech in the US would still be freer on average. I believe this because it turns out all of the categories of speech not protected by Article 10 are also not protected by the First Amendment (there are differences, but those differences are matters of boundary rather than category; concretely, Article 10 could be interpreted in a way that's congruent with the current interpretation of the First Amendment). > Which is part of why most transgressions involve the judicial branch heavily, the exceptions get their own page on Wikipedia. The thesis that pithier speech protections and less explicit exceptions result in judges more jealously guarding speech is an interesting legal theory. IMO it's much more likely that these differences are attributable to political culture and national ethos.
- friedman23 8y ago
  >None-the-less, those exceptions do exist! In the US you can say practically anything anywhere and have no fear of getting arrested. That is not the case in the EU.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    What was the business with the "free speech zones", anyway?
  - deleted 8y ago