> I would certainly never in a million years hope anyone would seriously claim the US to be the greatest country in the world.

I am quite certain a significant proportion of Americans genuinely believe it is.

Argumentum ad populum. Are you really going to generalize as well?

I hate many things about what the US is becoming--or has always been--but it does have some of the strongest free-speech rights in the world (though less so in recent decades as other nations catch up), and the world's highest public support for freedom of speech. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-cou...

The Trump administration has stumbled backwards very publicly with regard to the people that the framers intended for free speech rights to protect: journalists. From overt anti-journalist rhetoric[1], to possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi[2], a journalist critical of the Saudi regime. "Free speech" has been co-opted so effectively by the far-right movement that the same people who wave it around to defend debate of genocide simultaneously advocate for the prosecution of journalists.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35EWlJMmO4s

2. https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1064718127903268864

> possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi

Not central to the point, but Kashoggi was not a US national. He was a US-resident Saudi citizen. It's possible to be a US national but not a citizen, but Kashoggi wasn't one: https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html

Quibbling over status is an interesting fallout of the same right-wing nationalist rhetoric. You're right though. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident on an O Visa with US citizen children on his way to a green card[1].

Should we not care about his murder as much then?

1. https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khash...

> Should we not care about his murder as much then?

Actually, the correction was so that people wouldn't continue making the mistake, not because his citizenship status is a critical point. The error is a distraction from the main point that is avoidable in the future.

>The error is a distraction from the main point that is avoidable in the future.

Point taken. The intricacies of status continue to wonder and delight. :)

I think that the USA is definitely a proponent of free speech, and actually that it takes it to extremes.

Pretty much the only speech outlawed is child pornography and that which a reasonable person would see as inciting imminent violence. That's a pretty high bar, higher than any other country I've ever heard of.

I agree that the US has stronger free speech protections than any country I'm aware of, but we have more restrictions than the 2 you've mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Yes, words under copyright and defamatory statements. Not a huge expansion, covered under 'pretty much' in my opinion.

Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned.

>copyright and defamatory statements

These are much bigger restrictions that impact far more people than the others you mentioned.

>Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned.

There's also huge limitations on commercial speech; obscenity (which covers more than child pornography); reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions; perjury; blackmail; harassment; solicitations to commit crimes (not just inciting violence); student's speech while in school.

Obscenity doesn't cover much more than child pornography. It used to, but not anymore. You should read Reno v ACLU.

The reasonable time, manner and place restrictions aren't enforced and also wouldn't be upheld, but you're right, perjury, blackmail and some kinds of harassment aren't covered. Solicitations to commit crimes actually aren't always illegal.

>Obscenity doesn't cover much more than child pornography. It used to, but not anymore.

The definition of obscenity isn't well defined, but there are still numerous laws throughout the US that ban obscene speech that have been upheld--zoophilia porn laws, and bans on selling sex toys are 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head.

>The reasonable time, manner and place restrictions aren't enforced and also wouldn't be upheld

The government very regularly enforces this. What do you think free speech zones and protest permits are for?

You're in for a bad surprise. A lot of people were opposed to Trump's "Make America Great Again" claim because the claim insinuates that the US might not be literally the greatest country in the world right now.