This is the first sentence of the "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany):

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Repu...

Absatz 1 (paragraph 1) (see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html):

> (1) Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.

> (1) Human dignity is inviolable. It is the duty of all state authorities [remark: "Gewalt" literally means "violence" in English] to respect and protect it.

So it's a lot.

Edit: The above is mistaken. A law can restrict the 1st Amendment, or any other, if it survives "strict scrutiny":

Although "strict scrutiny leaves few survivors" and will usually strike down such laws when strict scrutiny is found to apply, "the government must show that there is a compelling, or very strong, interest in law, and that the law is either narrowly tailored or is the least restrictive means available to the government."

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1966/strict-scrutin...

as you can see a couple of those are laws like CP and "Threatening the president"

Copyright laws do that.

There you have a bunch of examples. Free speech in the US is restricted. That's the point I was making. You can be okay with the restrictions in place but you cannot ignore that they're there. That's just factually wrong.

They're civil actions but it's the government through the courts that finds you guilty and imposes punishments, seizing assets, etc. It's very hard to win cases on those things as the judiciary does its best to still make it work within the structure of the constitution but it does nonetheless restrict my ability to say "viro eats kittens" without possible penalty imposed by the government.