The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world.
Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official...
The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any serious person wants threats of violence to be universally legal.
And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak (with an officially approved typography)?
Any of the other implementations of the same concept found in most of the western world, take your pick. Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be able to point that it also applies to some application of the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in the united states.
You won't get arrested for a joke video about training your dog to do a Nazi salute in the US, but you will in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Who's to say that the current SCOTUS won't choose to interpret it in that way again?
People are people - they have emotions and whenever they argue politely or swear profusely they must not be persecuted for being upset with something. Even if they're most terribly wrong.
I found this nice summary table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_st... (sure, Wikipedia can be wrong, but I think this table should be accurate enough). It's all "no" only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia and the United States. This is a minority, surely not "most of the western world".
Hate speech is protected speech, as well as calls for violence (in limited circumstances); the standard for when speech is not protected is the event of 'imminent lawless action'. So, for instance, if you're in a lynch mob, and you yell to lynch a specific person, that's not protected, but if, e.g., you're marching down the street yelling to kill all the Jews, that is still protected speech (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie).
> Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down.
These are also constitutionally protected speech. Some places still have laws on the books regarding this, and some overzealous police departments might try to enforce them, but they would never hold up in court.
Oh, I didn't knew about this. Nice, it's even stronger than I thought. Thanks!
> These are also constitutionally protected speech.
Yeah, I've used those as examples of that. I know government doesn't fancy it and there are attempts to make this sort of desecration illegal now and then, but they're all ruled down in the end.
I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as it pertains to free speech. Can you enlighten me in terms of how other countries provide legal protection for speech in a way that you perceive to be "stronger" than the U.S? I can't imagine a functioning code of laws that allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater whose nation isn't straight up incapable or corrupt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
edit: it's strange not to even be able to imagine the circumstances you are currently in.
I don't understand.
According to the article you yourself link to, the phrase, in the US, has been a metaphor for conduct not protected by the first amendment for over a hundred years.
All that seems to have changed is the exact definition of "clear and present danger".
Is there a case you know about where someone literally falsely yelled fire in a crowd and it was deemed protected speech in the US?
I would imagine any play about the Chicago fire would be an example, let alone firing squads.