This, i think, is where the US got it right, by making it clear that the people were granting rights to the government and not the other way around. My understanding is that the US government would have no standing to make laws limiting free speech (even if they wanted to try). There is an interesting discussion here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte....
The US for sure has limitations on speech, for example credible threats.
I’m pretty certain that “speech” means expression of ideas, not the audible act of speaking. So making a threat is not covered in the same way that perjury isn’t covered.
Isn't actual speech also an expression of an idea?
But yes, another good example would be perjury.
I think GP is saying that threats or perjury are not just characterized by the expression of an idea but another underlying crime. Like if someone walks into a bank and says "give me all your money or else", it's still a crime, the speaking part of it is immaterial.
I wish I had expressed it as clearly: very much this.
It's worse than that. The limitations are subjective so anything can be included and Article 10 is meaningless. The UN declaration of human rights is the same. The final "right" is the right of governments to revoke all the other rights for pretty much whatever reason they feel like.
It's “freedom to X shall not be limited save by whatever lawmaker feels like”, but a lot of words to obscure the meaning.