So, ironically, under the current interpretation of 1A, communists have more freedom of speech and association in US than they do in Germany.
So what? Which country can't declare organisations illegal, if it determines them to be terrorist organisations? I'm pretty sure the USA can. So what does it matter if a terrorist organisation calls itself a "party"? (Didn't the Symbionese Liberation Army try exactly that?)
This is false.
There is no free speech anywhere in Europe. And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
This is a bold and unsubstantiated claim.
> And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
For this specific action? Sure. For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends on whether there is a law against it and if she pissed off someone "important" or enough people. There are various such cases.
edit: will respond to the replies after the rate-limit expires
I'm fine with that but its non the less the hard truth there is nothing like the 1st amendment in any other place.
>For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends....
To be in the right doesn't mean you win the court case that's true but in the EU you dont have the 1st amendment, you dont have the right to free speech. If the court system does its job correct you go to jail not when the system fails because of "important" people and corruption. You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say. Needless to say that the list of "crime speech" only gets longer and longer over time.
Most EU countries have some rather close analogue of the US First Amendment in their law or constitution. Sure, pretty much all of them have various exceptions, so there's no absolute free speech -- but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus also lacks absolute free speech.
On the whole, IMO your comment is much more wrong than right.
>but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus also lacks absolute free speech.
No, it does not the fist amendment is very clear and short enough to not have any loopholes in there. People just intentionally misinterpret it and then come around and say you can scream "bomb" in an airplane in US airspace therefore you dont have free speech in the US. This just shows the lack of understand what free speech means. Its not about having the right to make audible noises of any kind at any time and place. Similarly if you order a person to kill someone and do so with your voice trough the act of speaking, you are committing a crime.
> No, it does not the fist amendment is very clear and short enough to not have any loopholes in there.
> ...
> Similarly if you order a person to kill someone and do so with your voice trough the act of speaking, you are committing a crime.
You've already done it for me.
> You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say
Sounds like the US. Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
Of course it is. Anyway, I mentioned more cases where there is no voluntarily agreement.
> You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law.
You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech.
Name the case. The burden of proof lies with you if you clame people get jailed for speech.
I posted a case from Germany. So if you have one from the US post it. No one in the thread could post one so far.
This is false, I posted this before:
> Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.