Article 10 of the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR is very different from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as presently interpreted by SCOTUS.
It's also worth noting that the First Amendment as presently interpreted by SCOTUS protects some speech that was not always unambiguously protected; see e.g., a good fraction of humans pre-1970-or-so, the evolution of the court's treatment of obscenity, speech in the schoolhouse, and so on. In some sense, even previous Americans didn't have freedom of speech as a modern American would understand it.
In fact it lists the US below pretty much every European country, and the US is known to have some of the most permissive free speech laws.
But look at all the US kids having armed police sent to their homes because they swore on Xbox live.
I'm assuming you have links or evidence to back those claims up. Or are you mistaking this for kids getting swatted[1], because I certainly haven't heard of kids getting in trouble with police for swearing on Xbox live and I feel like that would make national news.
Making false statements to police is not protected speech. In every instance of this happening that I'm aware of when police are able to track down the individual(s) responsible, they are prosecuted, generally to the fullest extent of the law. It's dangerous to make something like a murder/suicide threat, and it should be treated & prosecuted as such. Yes, the police probably overreact, but they don't necessarily know it's a hoax.
I'm not talking about threats, just opinions.
And I'm not aware of any other sort of opinions that are illegal to state in America. Even denying or applauding genocides and other atrocities is legal in America.
Which case are you thinking about in particular?
Speech such as the Holocaust didn't exist doesn't represent immediate harm, and as despicable as it may be, is protected.
I think what you see as a huge gulf, I see as a moderate width river.
If anything, I might now argue this is case can be considered an example of “fighting words”, a concept which varies between legal jurisdictions but certainly does exist in the USA.
On further consideration, given the trigger phrase the dog was trained on, it might (IANAL) be argued to be “incitement”, which is also a thing which exists in USA law.
That's exactly it, this is clearly not incitement according to US law. Here are the two important concepts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
According to the latter, the smell test is:
> "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action"
The pug case in no way comes close to either of those clauses. I'd argue, from a legal standpoint, this is absolutely simply teaching his dog to salute. It's crass, rude, and offensive but also perfectly legal under any meaningful definition of free speech.
Sounds legit.
The 1st amendment has a similar set of exceptions (morals: [1, 2]; health: [3, 4]).
> preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
Several of the exceptions discussed in [5] apply here.
Some speech about non-gov't secrets is also not protected by the 1st. Two examples include anything the court decides is not of public interest (e.g., DeCSS), and publication of recordings or transcriptions without prior consent (in some states).
And then there's the most obvious historical exception to the First Amendment: being too dark in any century except this one.
The differences between the EU and the US are much more attributable to political culture. The massive and obvious failures of the First Amendment's protections in previous centuries demonstrate that the constitutional text itself plays only a small role; the political culture that ultimately interprets the text is also important.
Mistaking the First Amendment for a permanent, carte blanc, or unambiguous license to free speech willfully ignores the fact that the force of the document is inseparable from the political and governmental culture entrusted with its care, and that ALL current and previous political cultures have interpreted the First Amendment in a way that DOES restrict speech for "the protection of health or morals". and for "preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".
It is the degree to which these tradeoffs are made, not the mere existence of the tradeoffs, that differentiates the First Amendment from Article 10. And to see how those tradeoffs are made, you have to go beyond the text and delve into case law.
--
[1] https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
None-the-less, those exceptions do exist!
> Comparatively, the right is sacred in the US
I argue this is much more a result of political/governmental culture than the letter of the constitutional law.
I.e., we could swap the text of the First Amendment with the text of Article 10 and speech in the US would still be freer on average.
I believe this because it turns out all of the categories of speech not protected by Article 10 are also not protected by the First Amendment (there are differences, but those differences are matters of boundary rather than category; concretely, Article 10 could be interpreted in a way that's congruent with the current interpretation of the First Amendment).
> Which is part of why most transgressions involve the judicial branch heavily, the exceptions get their own page on Wikipedia.
The thesis that pithier speech protections and less explicit exceptions result in judges more jealously guarding speech is an interesting legal theory. IMO it's much more likely that these differences are attributable to political culture and national ethos.
In the US you can say practically anything anywhere and have no fear of getting arrested. That is not the case in the EU.
If you believe my claims about are inaccurate, I implore you to read through those 5 citations in my original post.
Which one would that be?
Anti-burqa laws, e.g. in Austria.