[stale2002]

Countries in Europe have some pretty huge restictions on speech that go far behind things like making death threats and fraud illegal.

Even the line that you quoted demonstrates this when it says things like "for the protection of morals".

I really do not want the government infringing on speech rights, due to something as overly broad as "morals".

[dependenttypes]

> Countries in Europe have some pretty huge restictions on speech that go far behind things like making death threats and fraud illegal.

So does the US.

[stale2002]

> So does the US

Not in comparison to the EU.

Most people can agree that restrictions on speech in the US are much less strict than those in the EU.

[dependenttypes]

Who are these "most people"? I am not aware of any such person myself.

Most (if not all) EU countries protect the freedom of speech in their constitution. In addition ECHR protects the freedom of speech as well.

[stale2002]

> Most (if not all) EU countries protect the freedom of speech in their constitution.

Not particularly well, as it seems when compared to the US.

You can just look at some of the laws that they have regarding speech, on their books, to see how there are definitely more things that are restricted that you can say, in comparison to what it restricted in the US.

[skissane]

You object to one of the specific exceptions in ECHR Article 10, not to the idea of making the exceptions explicit. The point I was defending was that the exceptions should be explicit, not that the particular list of exceptions in the ECHR is the right list