The 1st amendment has a similar set of exceptions (morals: [1, 2]; health: [3, 4]).

> preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence

Several of the exceptions discussed in [5] apply here.

Some speech about non-gov't secrets is also not protected by the 1st. Two examples include anything the court decides is not of public interest (e.g., DeCSS), and publication of recordings or transcriptions without prior consent (in some states).

And then there's the most obvious historical exception to the First Amendment: being too dark in any century except this one.

The differences between the EU and the US are much more attributable to political culture. The massive and obvious failures of the First Amendment's protections in previous centuries demonstrate that the constitutional text itself plays only a small role; the political culture that ultimately interprets the text is also important.

Mistaking the First Amendment for a permanent, carte blanc, or unambiguous license to free speech willfully ignores the fact that the force of the document is inseparable from the political and governmental culture entrusted with its care, and that ALL current and previous political cultures have interpreted the First Amendment in a way that DOES restrict speech for "the protection of health or morals". and for "preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".

It is the degree to which these tradeoffs are made, not the mere existence of the tradeoffs, that differentiates the First Amendment from Article 10. And to see how those tradeoffs are made, you have to go beyond the text and delve into case law.

--

[1] https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...