Hello. There is freedom of speech in America. However, there are also slander and libel laws in the States, too. So what does the presence of these laws say about freedom of speech? That there is no absolute freedom of speech? Or that there is freedom of speech but it's limited? What are your thoughts? Help a foreigner like me understand. Similar case can also be made about the president being bound by law not to disclose top-level secrets. Is the president's freedom of speech being curtailed? P.s. I have no opinion on this though, because I am very undecided on this topic.
Freedom of Speech in the USA is not unlimited. you cannot threaten direct violence against anyone, especially public officials. you cannot engage in speech that threatens public safety, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. you cannot intentionally lie about someone in order to defame their reputation or business.
I would think libel and slander laws are fairly similar in Canada, so I don't know in what way you're confused. Although the US's First Amendment probably does give Americans more expansive free speech than is found in other Western countries. As far as classified information, that's a totally different ball of wax. Before you have access, you sign a non disclosure agreement promising not to reveal it. So if you do, then you've committed a crime. Think of it as proprietary information that you don't own so therefore you don't have a legal right to use it other than for the use of your employer (the US government). But if a leaker reveals classified information to the say, The New York Times, the Times is not under any legal liability for printing it, since they were never a signatory on an NDA. They have a First Amendment right to print it. The leaker who disclosed it to them, on the other hand, faces jail time if caught.
The USA holds freedom of speech very dearly. We don't have hate speech laws because we don't want some politician deciding that someone who says something he doesn't agree with should be imprisoned.
There is a defense against slander and libel laws--telling the truth. You can't lose a libel or slander case if you can prove you wrote the truth.
Freedom of speech has an ultimate natural law PURPOSE under the constitution and framing documents, which is abridged and the thread does not account for that fact which makes the thread irrelevant and rhetorical.
Freedom of speech sounds great. But, unfortunately it also means freedom of vetbal abuse, belittling etc. Having an opinion should not be replied by "if you believe that you are an idiot", etc. But on this forum its the norm.
The government is not allowed to pass laws that limit speech, but people can file lawsuits under civil law against written or verbal speech that is both both false and cause damages. A good example of how this works is the old chestnut of yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is no law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and it would be welcomed if there is a real fire. However, doing that when there isn't a fire is form of inciting violence because of the ensuing stampede that could occur. Basically, the first amendment is there to protect our ability to speak the truth. It isn't there to protect liars who willfully want to hurt people.
The S.C. has ruled that there is no right or privilege enumerated in the Constitution that is not subject to limitation.
From what I have seen, the only people (at this forum) that need a "safe space" are members of the pro-Trump Snowflake echo chamber who find solace in the validation of their groupthink in the echo-chamber threads.