# What countries have 1st amendment rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 1, 2020, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960 "2020-12-01T22:26:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/21 "2020-12-03T16:04:12Z")
international observers have been coming to the US to observe elections for years. For the first time, the practice is controversial. You can imagine the reason… ---
**Author:** ![Kiwi\_Fruit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kiwi_fruit/32/12_2.png) [@Kiwi\_Fruit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiwi_Fruit)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/22 "2020-12-03T20:49:50Z")
In fact, NZ does have the Bill of Rights Act, 1990 which does codify freedom of expression. Here are specific sections quoted from the act, which is in full [here - NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#whole) ##### 13Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference. ##### 14Freedom of expression - Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. ##### 15Manifestation of religion and belief - Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have overriding powers, so other acts of Parliament may have sections which contradict the rights in the BoR Act. See section 4. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/23 "2020-12-03T21:05:49Z")
Reminder: This is General Questions. Cut the politicking, now. If I have to say so again, there will be Warnings. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2020, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/24 "2020-12-05T19:49:58Z")
The problem is that the American Founding fathers put “Free speech” in the constitution. AFAIK no other country has the blanket permission that free speech is protected. Canada - like NZ and many others, has put the exception for hate speech. The difficulty with this is defining what is acceptable and what is not allowed. When I was in university, there was an area where assorted organizations could exercise their right to speech, have a table to promote their organizations, etc. These ran the gamut. I recall there was a difficulty when the Communist party (or one of them) got in a dispute with some right-wing organization. Apparently baseball bats were part of the discussion. The communists agreed, they believed in free speech - except for fascists. When asked who was fascist, they replied “whoever we say is fascist”. This is the difficulty with exceptions, and what makes the US unique - for every other country, they can ban “hate speech” and then define it. Depending on the level of political correctness of the day, that definition could change. Every country of course has libel/slander laws; but generally, these require the person offended to sue and usually are civil not criminal. Hate speech is a criminal offense. The charge is willfully promoting hatred against a group. That leaves open to interpretation what constitutes a group and whether what was said promotes hatred. Whether this is a good idea is a matter of debate not general questions. Perhaps the point to be made is that political correctness can be as extreme a viewpoint as racial, religious or gender intolerance, and subject to the mood of the times. And as others have pointed out, the Soviet Union and North Korea have free speech in their constitution too - it comes down to how laws are enforced and against whom. (Fun fact - The backwoods prosecutor who tried to bring “Blasphemous libel” charges against a theatre showing _Monty Python’s Life of Brian_ back when it was first released was quickly overruled by the provincial AG. ) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2020, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/25 "2020-12-09T22:53:28Z")
> [@naita](#): > > The Hate Speech Law in the Norwegian penal code says it’s illegal to expressing hate speech in public as well as “profess hate speech in the presence of others towards someone based on their protected characteristic.” > > I can understand free speech absolutism, even though I disagree with it, but the “even in private!” seems like a disingenuous misrepresentation. I must be missing something because what you quoted seems that yes, it definitely applies in private. Maybe I am parsing the words too tightly, but in the “in the presence of others towards someone” it doesn’t require that I direct the hate speech towards one of the “others” in my presence, right? So, if I have a couple of my WASP heterosexual buddies over and say, “Geez, those gays are just ruining the country, huh?” then it seems that I violated the law because I professed hate speech in the presence of others (my buddies) towards someone (the gays) based on their protected characteristic. The singular “someone” gives me pause. It seems odd that in the same situation if I said “Dave, that gay guy is ruining the country” that would be illegal, but if I said that gays as a group, all of them, including Dave is ruining the country" it would be legal because of the singular “someone.” But in any event, it seems to definitely apply to private places. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/26 "2020-12-10T16:23:01Z")
Not entirely incorrect. I believe it was David Ahenakew in Canada who made a speech where he said some inappropriate hateful things about Jews. A reporter got to interview him privately later, and reported even more extreme anti-Semitic comments. (AFAIK, no Jews present) Based on this, he was charged. Again, nobody else in the room, no specific person referenced just a protected group, one-on-one conversation (but yes, with a media person), and the topic was raised by the reporter. After two trials he was acquitted. If Norway’s law works the same way, presumably the same charges could result. ---
**Author:** ![Astrid1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Astrid1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astrid1)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/27 "2020-12-10T16:35:25Z")
In Italy, where I live, there is of course freedom of speech. However there is a crime called APOLOGIA DEL FASCISMO, it means you cannot commend fascism ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/28 "2020-12-10T21:50:36Z")
On a totally different tack from politics and hate speech - another thing the First Amendment has done is make it more difficult to prosecute porn in the USA (But not impossible). It’s the same problem, at what point does free speech turn into something that is sufficiently unacceptable that society can prosecute someone for distributing it? ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/29 "2020-12-10T22:32:38Z")
I haven’t seen it said here, but even the blanket US free speech rights have nuance to them. I think the most commonly-cited example is _[Schenck v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)_ where speech that was intended to cause criminal behavior and could plausibly do so was not protected. ---
**Author:** ![yarblek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/71e660/32.png) [@yarblek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yarblek)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/30 "2020-12-10T22:57:00Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > It’s the same problem, at what point does free speech turn into something that is sufficiently unacceptable that society can prosecute someone for distributing it? Whatever society decides, which has often been arbitrary and capricious. In terms of law, there is the [Miller test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) in the US for some types of content. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/31 "2020-12-10T23:44:02Z")
I thought the Miller Test was “As long as you don’t say in your rule-violating post that you’re violated the rules of the Pit, you get a mod note, not a warning”. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/32 "2020-12-11T02:23:23Z")
I thought it depended on the time of day. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/33 "2020-12-11T16:48:35Z")
Obviously, no rights are ever absolute. Right to life can be terminated by execution. Free speech is limited by pornography, libel laws, incitement and conspiracy laws. The right to bear arms does not apply to prison inmates… etc. I don’t think the framers ever thought there was an absolute. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2020, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/34 "2020-12-12T22:23:26Z")
> [@yarblek](#): > > Whatever society decides, which has often been arbitrary and capricious. In terms of law, there is the [Miller test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) in the US for some types of content. I disagree. Obscenity can be prohibited because the communicative value of it is very small, if any at all, and it is something that historically been prohibited and was prohibited at the time of the founding. Banning “hate speech” (whatever that might mean) is a content based restriction on communicative speech and allows a government to say that certain ideas are bad. That is only one step removed from saying that ideas in the Democratic party platform are bad and banned. The limit isn’t what society “decides” because that decision has been made. We have the right, not subject to a vote, of free speech. What exactly that means around the edges can be debated, but an idea is indisputably protected and cannot be banned. If it is just whatever society wants, then that makes free speech no different than the right to have a backyard swimming pool: you can have it if allowed, you can’t if not. You might as well delete the First Amendment. And it just won’t do to use the trite phrase that no rights are absolute. That’s true, but whenever it is said, it is used as a justification of nearly every restriction on a right. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2020, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/35 "2020-12-13T04:43:52Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > …The colloquial right to talk bunkum, bilge, drivel, twaddle, guff and bull’s wool is unabridged and commonly encouraged. And eagerly embraced, I believe. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > …The first amendment to the U.S. Constiution is a limitation on government: it specifies what Congress shall **not** do. And since 1925, not just Congress, either: [Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York) ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2020, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/36 "2020-12-13T06:14:11Z")
> Banning “hate speech” (whatever that might mean) is a content based restriction on communicative speech and allows a government to say that certain ideas are bad. I make no claim to understanding how your legislators and courts interpret the term, but over here “hate” is not just an idea, but a behaviour with social consequences. Whether any given communication falls within our definition of “incitement to hatred” or lesser public order offences, or for sentencing as a crime aggravated by racial or religious hatred, is for the courts to decide in the light of the context and circumstances. But none of those criminalises the expression of an idea alone. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2020, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/37 "2020-12-13T14:59:18Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > I make no claim to understanding how your legislators and courts interpret the term, but over here “hate” is not just an idea, but a behaviour with social consequences. > > Whether any given communication falls within our definition of “incitement to hatred” or > lesser public order offences, or for sentencing as a crime aggravated by racial or religious hatred, is for the courts to decide in the light of the context and circumstances. But none of those criminalises the expression of an idea alone. Yeah, if it goes from an idea to behavior (e.g. I think blacks are inferior—idea versus I burn down a black person’s house) that is clearly punishable here. And such a thing can be used as an aggravating factor for punishment for a crime. But, from my understanding, these laws do criminalize the expression of an idea alone. No doubt, they are odious ideas, but that’s the whole point of free speech: you don’t need protection for popular ideas, you need protection for the ones that everyone abhors and would like to outlaw. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2020, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/38 "2020-12-14T00:55:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yeah, if it goes from an idea to behavior (e.g. I think blacks are inferior—idea versus I burn down a black person’s house) that is clearly punishable here. In the US, if you suggest to person that the house across the street should be burned down, and mention that there is a can of gasoline and a lighter in the garage, and that person immediately burns the house down, your speech is not protected. You could be prosecuted for it. That’s my understanding from past rulings. ---
**Author:** ![Bootb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@Bootb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bootb)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2020, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/39 "2020-12-14T04:44:07Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > I make no claim to understanding how your legislators and courts interpret the term, but over here “hate” is not just an idea, but a behaviour with social consequences. So in theory, at least, Nazi rallies are banned as hate. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2020, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960/40 "2020-12-14T05:04:47Z")
> So in theory, at least, Nazi rallies are banned as hate. That would depend on what the people involved actually say and do, in planning and carrying out such a rally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-countries-have-1st-amendment-rights/926960.md?page=3)