I hate this statement because it usually means the person making it doesn't know very much about free speech laws.
As another user points out, the limits placed on our free speech are all directly related to actions that can harm other people. Like yelling fire in a crowded theater. That can/will result in a stampede which will hurt or even kill other people. It isn't limiting what you're saying because it's some dislike political opinion, it's limiting what you can say so you don't kill people. There's a huge, huge difference.
and there is a huge difference between not having free speech and having "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Well, except for the fact that you're attempting to lump the U.S in with countries like Germany who have what you describe. The U.S has "more free" speech. In Germany, you can't deny the holocaust. That isn't preventing harm, it's trying to stop a political statement. I'm no holocaust denier but I feel that if someone wants to parade their ignorance, they should be allowed. It makes idiots easier to identify.
Most other countries have similar limits on free speech. The U.S limits aren't of political origins, but actual physical safety. And I think that makes a world of difference.
It also makes it easier to shift the Overton window in favour of statements like "Hitler did nothing wrong" by recruiting more "idiots" to the Holocaust-denying cause. Or more accurately, recruiting ignorant and impressionable people who probably shouldn't always be expected to know better — but who might have otherwise. This is also a kind of harm, albeit a more indirect one.
And before you reply "that's what schools are for"; what difference does it make whether a body of beliefs is government-sanctioned and taught in schools or "merely" treated as a respectable opinion in the public square? A naive kid may have their opinion swayed just as strongly, if not more, by a street cultist preacher than by an overworked, burned-out schoolteacher. Would you be okay with Scientology being taught in schools? I assume not. Would you be okay with Scientologists luring children into a camp five metres away from a school? Fifty metres? Five hundred? At what point does it stop being harmful enough to be worth prohibiting? I don't think there is any.
I would rather live in Germany than in the United States, and one of the main reasons is precisely this kind of free speech absolutism.
The U.S doesn't enforce most of its obscenity clauses. With the exception of Child pornography, etc... And if you're asking what harm does that cause, well, it harms the kid getting sexually abused. Most of the obscenity laws are related to minors. Either in the the consumption of pornography or production.
> Communism Control Act
What about it? It's irrelevant here. In fact, anything that hasn't been challenged in the supreme court is irrelevant because the supreme court is the law of the land, not local, city or state governments. Per wikipedia: "the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century." It's quite obvious which way they'd rule if it were to be challenged, as even lower courts in NY ruled against it in the 70s.
And I think that's the most important thing here; In germany, for example, you can't challenge their free speech law regarding the holocaust. It's set in stone. In the U.S, unless the supreme court has ruled on it, it is not set in stone. And the supreme court of the U.S has an incredibly good track record when it comes to defending our freedoms. Sure, it's laid a couple stinkers here and there, but 99% of the time, its ruling is favorable towards those who value freedom, liberty and independence. It's kept us from fascism and helped keep us from turning into a theocracy.
> And I think that's the most important thing here; In germany, for example, you can't challenge their free speech law regarding the holocaust. It's set in stone.
Wrong. We have the constitutional court (essentially the US supreme court equivalent) and since the holocaust denial law is not part of the constitution, but freedom of opinion is, all the same arguments you presented about the US laws works just as well for Germany.
And in my opinion our constitutional court has an even better track record of defending our freedom than the US supreme court (from the rulings I hear about on this side of the pond).
