[ben_w]

I did say the USA allowed more speech than the EU. However, my point with this example is that while the USA may allow this, it is not simply “teaching his dog to salute”, it went far beyond that.

If anything, I might now argue this is case can be considered an example of “fighting words”, a concept which varies between legal jurisdictions but certainly does exist in the USA.

On further consideration, given the trigger phrase the dog was trained on, it might (IANAL) be argued to be “incitement”, which is also a thing which exists in USA law.

[ng12]

> which is also a thing which exists in USA law.

That's exactly it, this is clearly not incitement according to US law. Here are the two important concepts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

According to the latter, the smell test is:

> "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action"

The pug case in no way comes close to either of those clauses. I'd argue, from a legal standpoint, this is absolutely simply teaching his dog to salute. It's crass, rude, and offensive but also perfectly legal under any meaningful definition of free speech.

[ben_w]

I’d argue that (2) could apply in certain countries given the current political situation in those countries. However, I am already certain you won’t see it that way at all. I find it rather more interesting that we disagree about the magnitude of the difference between the systems.