|
|
|
|
|
|
by davidnu2
4508 days ago
|
|
|
First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10". Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety: 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations. |
|
|
As a Brit, my knowledge of US law is limited, but that seems pretty clearly false. The exceptions and limitations are set out in case law rather than in the text of the amendment (as they are in A.10), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep... lists the main ones (Miller v. California, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, etc.). The areas covered seem at a glance to be broadly similar to those in A.10(2).
I think it's probably true that exceptions to the US 1st amendment are narrower than those to A.10 -- the US does indeed have fairly strong free speech protection -- but that's a long way from saying there aren't any!
(I don't think I'd want free speech to be an unqualified right, either. Many of the limitations in the US and EU seem broadly sensible - obvious example: there are good consequentialist reasons for restricting the distribution of child pornography).