[dogma1138]

>European convention on human rights (which has its own free speech article).

You are referring to article 10 which comes with a very big caveat:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Compare it to the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So yes, the US is pretty much unique in the way it refers to freedom of speech both de jure and de facto. Article 10 pretty much says, yeah we respect the fact that in theory you should be able to say what you want, but make sure it doesn't offend anyone.

[dragonwriter]

The express caveat in Article 10 is not all that dissimilar to how the protections in the Bill of Rights are actually applied in the US; now, its true, that the caveats in the US are unwritten (at least, in the Constitution itself) and are found in case law which is itself grounded in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, the way in which the similar language in older documents which inspired the Bill of Rights was applied (which is held to illuminate the intended meaning of the language used in the Bill of Rights), etc.

Obviously, the ECHR, being between countries which lack the commonality of legal history and political culture had to make express what would be understood from context in a framework where the participants shared more deeply in a common legal history and political culture, but the substantive meaning isn't all that different.

[dogma1138]

It is quite dissimilar in its applications on pretty much everything but national security.

You won't see things like this in the US http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm

Some European countries (such as Sweden and Germany) and the EU as a whole have been stepping up censorship of both social and traditional media these past few years. While it's easy to classify this as just fighting "right wing extremist" much of what is being censored wouldn't be considered right wing nor extremist in the academic sense in any way.

This does not only include traditional "hate speech" like immigrants are bad... mmkay or jews are evil but goes deeper and threatens to classify any criticism of EU policies or anything that causes political disturbance as "hate speech". Whats even more disturbing is that many of these measures are enacted on the back of terrorist attacks in Europe and over the world, but end up being used in combating local political dissent.

If you'll want to make an analogy to what happens in the US then the latest EU movements to cramp freedom of speech are not that different than the massive surveillance program that the US embarked on post 9/11, if anything it is probably worse. While surveillance might have a negative effect on expression and it sure can help breed homogenous group think, dictating what can and cannot be said, and what should are should not be thought is considerably more dangerous.