How is the US different from any other country in history in that regard?
You can be in North Korea and freely criticize the government, you're just not gonna be "free from the consequences".
Turns out, being protected from the 'consequences' is what actually matters.
Boe Jiden will probably sue you for defamation.
The courts will very likely give him the win, slamming you with a hefty fine and perhaps more such as prison time depending on the damages your speech incurred.
You can say Boe Jiden is a purple Martian born in Backwaterstan again, so long as you're fine going through that rigmarole again though you'll probably face even heftier penalties.
You are in no way prevented from voicing your thoughts because the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to do so. You can only ever be prosecuted for the consequences, such as the fallout from making false statements.
Again, freedom of speech exists in North Korea and it's protected by law, it's just that you're not free from the consequences of abusing freedom of speech.
Again, note precisely what is prosecuted here in the US where free speech is a guaranteed Constitutional right. You can with absolute power say whatever you want, but you will need to own up to it.
If you don't or can't own up to what you say, don't speak. This isn't a violation of free speech because nobody is prohibiting or otherwise compelling you from speaking.
Either we say that people are free to express their opinions, or we punish people for saying things we don't like. Can't have both at the same time.
The other guy used the argument "but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument invalid.
I don't understand why this step "if people can be punished for saying something then they don't have freedom of speech" isn't an obvious logical statement.
> but the US constitution guarantees freedom of speech" yeah so does North Korean, argument invalid.
Well courts in the US are somewhat independent and generally tend to usually adhere to that part of the US constitution when making decisions. North Korean courts? Not so much... Obviously it's a spectrum since the world is not black and white but I really don't quite understand what are you trying to say.
Are you seriously claiming that you don't see a fundamental difference between the US and North Korea in this case? Or do you just want someone to spend their time compiling a list of Supreme Court decisions relating to freedom of speech?
This is the problem because 99% of people are effectively dependent on their employers, and there's huge power imbalance between employers and employees.
In Europe there's a specific list of reasons which can result in work contract termination. This means that the employer cannot fire me just because I posted on Facebook "vote for party X for better future". This means that I feel free to post this because I know nobody will ruin my life over that.
In most US states there's a specific list of reasons why people cannot be fired - which means they can be fired for all other reasons, and "posting on Facebook that you support given party" does not belong to that list, which means that you can be fired for that, which effectively makes you think twice before you say things publicly.
I really don't think that "you don't go to jail but you have your life ruined by being fired and becoming unemployable" is such a fantastic deal and an example of freedom of speech.
That's the real issue, however fundamentally I don't really see an issue if saying certain things publicly makes you effectively unemployable.
> In Europe there's a specific list of reasons which can result in work contract termination.
It varies by country but I'm not sure it applies to illegal/banned speech? Also in Europe you can be convicted and fined for quoting the Hadith while not being a Muslim* and the ECHR doesn't see a problem with that (which unfortunately proves that "freedom of speech" is just not a thing in Europe).
Germany is putting people in prison (for as long as 5 years) just for their speech (as false and repulsive as it might be. How is that better than making those people "unemployable"? Which probably wouldn't even be the case since there (unfortunately) are still plenty of people who'd hire nazi apologists (both in US and Europe).
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.S._v._Austria_(2018)
> is such a fantastic deal and an example of freedom of speech.
IMHO it really depends on what opinions exactly did you express. Again I don't see how is it any fairer to impose your personal controversial views on your employer (even if indirectly).
You are still failing to understand that nobody is prosecuted for what they say in the US. What is prosecuted is the damages incurred from what is said, such as damage to reputation in the case of defamation or physical/financial harm in the case of false marketing.
If you can't understand that, you need to go back and do your homework before you continuing discussing freedom of speech.
The 1st Amendment guarantees you the right to say whatever the fuck you want, with some very specific caveats concerning disturbing the peace, but freedom is power and power is responsibility.