That's a common misconception. The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R... and is legally binding in all member states.
Sure, there are exceptions but in the USA too freedom of speech is not absolute either.
> there is more freedom of speech in most EU countries than in the USA
A quick look at Steam says otherwise. All the games that credit cards companies pressured to get removed from Steam, were already long gone in Germany. Because that's the level of government censorship that is completely normal in Germany.
The only reason why one might get the idea that Germany ain't so bad is because Germany doesn't do (much) Internet censorship, so we have access to the much less censored outside world. If German law would apply worldwide half the Internet would be wiped out.
Germany has a rich history, particularly in the gaming industry. Not the best example for "EU countries" since most of their censorship was blood and gore and anything related to Nazi symbolism, which was a plague of video games in the 1980s-2000s, since they were always the bad guys in video games, leading to heavy censorship in video games. In 2018, they lifted it significantly, and the list of censored or banned video games in Germany is relatively short.
Including things like "media bias" and other dubious criteria in freedom of speech rankings is obviously skewed.
Whatever the ECHR might say what I wrote in my previous comment is factual. In Europe "freedom of speech" comes with a long list of small print.
In fact, this is so embedded that the article of the ECHR you quote provides for restrictions and even states that they are "necessary": "subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"." QED
The distinction is academical. As I wrote, freedom of speech is not absolute in the USA either, think copyright law or gag orders etc. And arguing about this day after Colbert's show is cancelled...
The internet will never run out of idiots arguing that there is no freedom in the EU and freedom of speech is a uniquely US thing. The German constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech? Doesn't matter. The US limits plenty of types of speech? Who cares.
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
> Under Title 18 Section 871 of the United States Code it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States." This also applies to any "President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect."[45] This law is distinct from other forms of true threats because the threatener does not need to have the actual capability to carry out the threat; thus, for example, a person in prison could be charged.
> The German constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech?
Article 5 of the Basic Law guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by broadcast and film. It immediately restricts those freedoms with "limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour." https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...
Many kinds of speech aren't covered by the enumerated freedoms in the first place, and "protection of young persons" is the basis for age-verification requirements.
Though given that the US constitution claims to guarantee freedom of speech while many things that people would ordinarily consider speech remain illegal, maybe "freedom of expression within limits" and "freedom of speech" is a distinction without difference in practice. But I think the former approach is more honest.
I am not a lawyer, but, including as in the US case the interpretations adopted by the constitutional courts, the "freedom of expression in spoken and written word and image" is considered to not enumerate a limited list of expressions but cover all forms of expression.
It is true that paragraph 2 allows limiting expression, but the point here is that generally it is not permissible to limit speech based on its content, but only due to other "general laws" that aim to do non-speech related things (including upholding other constitutional rights).
In the case of protection of honor, I find interesting the interpretation of the constitutional court that this does not limit speech if there are alternative non-demeaning ways to express your opinion. This to me seems the strongest divergence to the US concept of Freedom of Speech. If you can express the same content in a less demeaning way, the courts can force you to do so. Still: It is considered crucial by the constitutional court that general laws do not limit the freedom to criticize.
Overall the court has noted that the limits of freedom of expression need to be as small as possible, and that there always needs to be a balance of other (constitutional) rights being protected when there is such a limit placed. Laws can not arbitrarily restrict speech, and the special importance of the constitutional right to freedom of speech needs to be considered.
The protections around speech are constructed differently than in the US, but overall seem to arrive at roughly similar results. It is also important to note that protection of speech has varied quite a lot over the 20th century in the US. From 1919 for 50 years, Supreme Court precedent was that advocating against the draft was illegal:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
In this case the clear and present danger is that of "hindering the governments war effort". This was the status of Free Speech in the US at the time the German constitution was written.
So yeah, there are important differences, a ton of nuance, many similarities between German and US cases, etc... Which is why I can't really consider anything that boils down to "Well the US has free speech, unlike EU/Germany/...", without even hinting at the freedom of speech trade-offs that are made in both systems, as an argument made in good faith.
Well, the Internet will never run out who don't read because I can't see anyone arguing that there is no freedom in the EU. No-one is arguing there it is absolute in the US, either. I guess insults are easier than a thoughtful reply.
"in the US sense" being the key word. Hence my previous comment about people not reading...
None of the replies I got address the point. They are at best beside it, at worst they are misrepresentations and bare insults (guidelines, indeed!) for no apparent reason. Is it because "EU good, Trump bad"? I have no idea.
The restrictions on "free speech" that European countries implement, and which are increasing, would be unthinkable in the US because of their understanding of "free speech" and the legal protections in place.
We haven’t learned anything. We’re already caught in a radicalization spiral between the far left and the far right, echoing 1930s Europe. AfD is currently the most popular party in Germany, France is stuck between the National Rally and the openly communist New Popular Front, and if you think they won’t gladly exploit existing restrictions on free speech once they take power, you’re in for a rude awakening.
You argue about the EU as if we were still living in 2005.
Regarding France, it is a big stretch to paint the National Rally as "far right" at this point. The label is mostly over-used to create tactical FUD against them.
Likewise I would not say that the New Popular Front is communist, either, although as a coalition it does include parties that are.
It may do so in some of their written papers, but in practice I risk going to prison if I dare say some things. Soon enough it will be illegal for me, the grandkid of a devout communist party member, to say that I agree with what my grandad believed in, it is already illegal to do that in the Czech Republic.
A quick look at Steam says otherwise. All the games that credit cards companies pressured to get removed from Steam, were already long gone in Germany. Because that's the level of government censorship that is completely normal in Germany.
The only reason why one might get the idea that Germany ain't so bad is because Germany doesn't do (much) Internet censorship, so we have access to the much less censored outside world. If German law would apply worldwide half the Internet would be wiped out.