> The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world.
Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official...
The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.
That the 1st Amendment is not an absolute protection on all speech does not change the fact that it is one of the strongest protections that does exist.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any serious person wants threats of violence to be universally legal.
In paper is right and aims right. In practice we can discuss your claims but it's still one of the best (or more fairly, less worst) implementations in human history so far.
And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak (with an officially approved typography)?
Any of the other implementations of the same concept found in most of the western world, take your pick. Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be able to point that it also applies to some application of the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in the united states.
I think the primary intent for the First Amendment and best indicator how US is different from most places is how in the US anyone can freely say whatever is on their mind about anything government. Okay, sure, except for the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously. Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down. And fear no legal persecution.
People are people - they have emotions and whenever they argue politely or swear profusely they must not be persecuted for being upset with something. Even if they're most terribly wrong.
I found this nice summary table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_st... (sure, Wikipedia can be wrong, but I think this table should be accurate enough). It's all "no" only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia and the United States. This is a minority, surely not "most of the western world".
> Okay, sure, except for the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously.
Hate speech is protected speech, as well as calls for violence (in limited circumstances); the standard for when speech is not protected is the event of 'imminent lawless action'. So, for instance, if you're in a lynch mob, and you yell to lynch a specific person, that's not protected, but if, e.g., you're marching down the street yelling to kill all the Jews, that is still protected speech (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie).
> Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down.
These are also constitutionally protected speech. Some places still have laws on the books regarding this, and some overzealous police departments might try to enforce them, but they would never hold up in court.
> see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
Oh, I didn't knew about this. Nice, it's even stronger than I thought. Thanks!
> These are also constitutionally protected speech.
Yeah, I've used those as examples of that. I know government doesn't fancy it and there are attempts to make this sort of desecration illegal now and then, but they're all ruled down in the end.
People were arrested and imprisoned for distributing leaflets opposing the draft. The First Amendment didn't help them much, despite remaining completely unchanged for the past 250 years.
Your example of America not having free speech is a case from a century ago which has been overturned since then. Not going to bother responding to any further replies since you obviously aren't arguing in good faith.
Has anything about the FA changed over the past century? Why do you think the current stronger interpretation of it is not a passing fad? Why do you assume that rights strengthen over time? We just had a plethora of examples to the contrary.
Your argument is that the 1st Amendment is not one of the strongest legal protection of speech in the world?
I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as it pertains to free speech. Can you enlighten me in terms of how other countries provide legal protection for speech in a way that you perceive to be "stronger" than the U.S? I can't imagine a functioning code of laws that allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater whose nation isn't straight up incapable or corrupt.
>The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater
I don't understand.
According to the article you yourself link to, the phrase, in the US, has been a metaphor for conduct not protected by the first amendment for over a hundred years.
All that seems to have changed is the exact definition of "clear and present danger".
Is there a case you know about where someone literally falsely yelled fire in a crowd and it was deemed protected speech in the US?
Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official...
The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.