The right to publish any media, no matter how obscene or political, is free speech. And the US has the closest to free speech of any major country.
Not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Diana
> or political
Also not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...
I'd recommend reading up on these:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_broadcasting_in_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
It's a march. It's a protest. Protesting is free speech. Of course it's free speech.
>The right to publish any media, no matter how obscene or political, is free speech. And the US has the closest to free speech of any major country.
No, that's freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is about protesting.
When it comes to freedom of the press, Reporters Without Borders rates the US quite poorly - it's down at #43, with the UK at #40. When it comes to anglo cultures, the highest any of the 'five eyes' gets is New Zealand, at #13.
There is a difference between law and implementation.
As I said, there is a difference between law and implementation.
Also, it's not true that the top-scorers have blasphemy laws - most of them don't have one at all at the moment, and the ones that did were mostly used in the early part of last century (and rarely at that). Even Germany's 'blasphemy' law is actually a 'disturbing the peace' law; you're not going to go to jail for saying 'christ' when you hit your thumb with a hammer.