"For the prevention of disorder of crime, for the protection of health and morals for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" -- those are wide, gaping holes which make this statement absolutely useless.
"For the prevention of disorder of crime, for the protection of health and morals for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" -- those are wide, gaping holes which make this statement absolutely useless.
> For the prevention of disorder of crime
There are all sorts of types of speech that are criminal in the US because they are either a crime, or encourage/enable crime in some way.
> for the protection of health and morals
There are plenty of examples in the US of speech being limited for health reasons.
Protection of morals is a bit more of a gray area, but certainly there are historical examples of the US limiting speech for reasons that amount to morality.
> for the protection of the reputation or rights of others
Again, libel is a crime in the US.
The difference is evidenced by the "right to be forgotten" ruling in Europe, where the ability to hide past actions was deemed more important than the right to publicize those links / events.
There is no criminal defamation in the U.S. at a federal level, and only a minority of states have such an offense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#C...
According to the Wikipedia page said laws are rarely used, though I cannot speak to that myself.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...