[barry-cotter]

>> The USA as the only nation in the world with true free speech protections.

> Is this accurate? Legally, I understand that free speech is protected in the US constitution. I'm sure it's not the only country in the world with free speech laws, but I don't know how the specifics compare.

There is at least a very good case to be made that the US has by far the strongest free speech guarantee. Commonwealth countries and the UK have nothing as strong as the first amendment. Canada’s free speech commitment is derisory in law because of the notwithstanding clause, the UK has the Official Secrets Act and Australia doesn’t have a right to free speech in its constitution.

I will pass over European countries with their Holocaust denial laws, bans on swastikas and the ECHR deciding that saying Mohamed was a paedophile as obviously having very weak commitments to free speech.

Maybe not the only country with true free speech protections but certainly it has the strongest.

[kibibu]

Ahem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

[beerandt]

This is a gross misunderstanding of the concept, and it pisses me off.

Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't give you the right to someone else's audience. It doesn't give you license to harrass. It doesn't give you license to trespass (including a properly licensed/permitted event on public property). It doesn't give you license to disruptively yell over whoever you might be protesting. It doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious for the same of getting attention, like blocking traffic.

Hijacking someone else's gathering is infringing on both their right to free speech and their right to peaceful assembly. Go have your own assembly somewhere else. There is no right to disrupt. If you can say the same message anywhere else in the country without restriction or repercussion, then you're freedom of speech hasn't been infringed.

That said, and even by that standard, the US is the most tolerant of free speech by far.

[gizmo686]

From Wikipedia on the Official Secrets Act [0]

> "The offences under the Act, that can be committed only by persons who, as the case may be, are or have been Crown servants, government contractors, or members of the security and intelligence services, can be committed only where the information, document or other article in question is or has been in the possession of the person in question by virtue of their position as such."

This seems less onerous then US laws related to classified materials. As with the UK, "normal" citizens are not bound by the law. However, those with a clearence are barred from speaking about classified material regardless of if they acuired access through their work. (They are also barred from reading classified materials, but that might be just a condition of maintaining clearence)

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989

[mytailorisrich]

There are quite a few restrictions in the UK. Anything that is considered hate speech, racism, etc. for example.

[htfu]

How does some countries “Holocaust denial laws, bans on swastikas” (not EU-wide), or “the ECHR deciding that saying Mohamed was a paedophile” (court refusing to overrule a local restriction on speech doesn't somehow make the standing blasphemy ruling any less specific to Austria...) indicate other European countries having "very weak" commitments to free speech?