[0x706B]

Hm, not quite sure I can follow the _unique_ part.

E.g. german constitution is quite similar:

``` Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.

(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. ```

(2) notes that there _are_ limits, but if I understood the concept of gag orders and also wolverine876's answer correct, thats the same for the US:

``` Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, ```

[Brybry]

I was under the impression that Germany bans Nazi symbols (with some exceptions for education/art). [1]

In comparison, Nazi symbols are protected hate speech in the US. [2]

The US has tried to ban political parties in the past but eventually courts find that sort of thing unconstitutional. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_Nazi_symbols#United_St...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

[weinzierl]

In Germany Nazi symbols are strictly banned but you are allowed to name soldiers killers. My hunch is that calling a veteran or active member of the armed forces of the US a killer would not go so well and might very well end in a slander suit.

When you free speech is restricted still seems pretty arbitrary to me [shrug].

[monocasa]

You can call US service members killers all you want. In fact "baby killer" is a relatively common refrain during protests aimed at the military. Maybe in the UK with their asinine slander laws you'd have to be more quiet but that's pretty clearly first amendment protected territory in the US.

[janalsncm]

SLAPP suits are a thing in the US. You might not go to prison for your speech but that doesn’t mean you can do it.

[monocasa]

SLAPP suits come from massive sources of capital which have enough counsel either on retainer or simply have enough money that they don't miss ~$50k on a whim to get back at someone who they think besmirched them that one time. That doesn't really apply to US service members.

[habinero]

SLAPP suits are filed by the defendant, ie the person who said the thing.

They're a response to being sued. If a lawsuit is clearly bogus, you can get it thrown out extremely quickly and the other side usually has to pay your attorneys.

Not all states have them and not all states that have them, have good ones.

https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection

[janalsncm]

> Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Anti-SLAPP suits are filed by the person who said the thing. And yes some states have good anti-slapp protections but that means the rest of Americans don’t enjoy that freedom.

[microtherion]

You could get sued, but you would almost certainly win, as evidenced by the Westboro Baptist Church who won a Supreme Court case after being sued for witnessing their Christian faith with messages like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You Are Going to Hell" at a soldier's funeral:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps