Literally the first amendment (1789):
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2776_(1917_film...
According to the article, Debs' sentence was upheld because it was found that the intent of his message was prevent the war.
By the way, the activist that was sentenced to ten years in jail for arguing against war also got a million votes for the presidency, so this is a case of supression of political candidates because of their speech and political activity.
If you disagree, instead of just downvoting factual statements you disagree with, you should comment to correct them or state why they are in bad form.
Notably the evidence presented has plain gaps. Consider the second link: "Goldstein's attorneys were unable to argue for protection under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court had ruled in 1915 that movies lacked such protection. (That ruling was overturned in 1952.)" That final parenthetical is critical because it suggests that a modern court would not rule the same way the court did in 1915 given similar facts.
To be clear, I don't have enough context to evaluate the merits of the statement in full just noting why it may have come across as glib and hence downvoted.
That said, yeah I'd agree that there wasn't a lot of effort, but the first link reealllyyyyyyy speaks for itself here.
Therefore, the argument would be that it's not a "human right" but mostly a "Western right"
I'd bet on it getting worse from here.