> 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 sa

> 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.