1) The American conception of free-speech absolutism is unique and an extreme point compared to the rest of the world. For example, Germany forbids Nazi symbols and India forbids speech that may rile up religious/communal violence and Britain has stronger libel laws than in the US. These are codified in the laws of these countries. Even in the US, there has always been a tension between the absolutist wording of the First Amendment, the law as interpreted by federal and state courts, and ground-reality enforcement. It's hard to argue against some restrictions on free speech - most everyone agrees you shouldn't be able to say "fire" in a crowded theater. And practically-speaking, the speech of leftists and Black civil rights agitators has been policed, literally. We've been able to forget the "paradox of tolerance" since we haven't been in a "post-truth" society until recently (for a sizable segment of the population anyway.) But now, we're having to deal with that issue. The questions have lurked beneath the surface.
2) The conception of individual rights is an Enlightenment idea. There are other ways to base a society - for example, starting from justice as the primary concern instead of rights, or starting from proper conduct according to some religious authority. Of course, we in America are heavily biased toward the Enlightenment approach to founding a political order. In a multi-valent world, we are having to confront these other political philosophies. So, I'd urge you to look at the "rights" discourse from other angles from the one that's "authorized" by the founders. In a way, little holds together America except the repeated affirmation that we are Americans and that we believe in the sacred principles of the Constitution. This, of course, makes it hard to question these fundamentals.
So, in summary, I'm trying to note that American free-speech values exist in a continuum and are historically contingent. They aren't fixed, and we might move to alternate interpretations and approaches over time.
1) The American conception of free-speech absolutism is unique and an extreme point compared to the rest of the world. For example, Germany forbids Nazi symbols and India forbids speech that may rile up religious/communal violence and Britain has stronger libel laws than in the US. These are codified in the laws of these countries. Even in the US, there has always been a tension between the absolutist wording of the First Amendment, the law as interpreted by federal and state courts, and ground-reality enforcement. It's hard to argue against some restrictions on free speech - most everyone agrees you shouldn't be able to say "fire" in a crowded theater. And practically-speaking, the speech of leftists and Black civil rights agitators has been policed, literally. We've been able to forget the "paradox of tolerance" since we haven't been in a "post-truth" society until recently (for a sizable segment of the population anyway.) But now, we're having to deal with that issue. The questions have lurked beneath the surface.
2) The conception of individual rights is an Enlightenment idea. There are other ways to base a society - for example, starting from justice as the primary concern instead of rights, or starting from proper conduct according to some religious authority. Of course, we in America are heavily biased toward the Enlightenment approach to founding a political order. In a multi-valent world, we are having to confront these other political philosophies. So, I'd urge you to look at the "rights" discourse from other angles from the one that's "authorized" by the founders. In a way, little holds together America except the repeated affirmation that we are Americans and that we believe in the sacred principles of the Constitution. This, of course, makes it hard to question these fundamentals.
So, in summary, I'm trying to note that American free-speech values exist in a continuum and are historically contingent. They aren't fixed, and we might move to alternate interpretations and approaches over time.