Freedom of speech is quite complex and every single country in the world has limits on speech. Japan and the US seem to have the broadest interpretation of freedom of speech, yet both countries have reasonable limits when it comes to obscenity, direct threats of violence, and others.
Many countries under the Crown do not have freedom of speech. In New Zealand, the live stream video from the Christchurch shooting was illegal to possess or distribute, without seeking specific permission (e.g for academic purposes). Most Kiwi's I've talked to considered this reasonable, and even the Americans who immigrated understood and accepted this limit when they choose to apply for residence or citizenship.
Australia doesn't have freedom of speech or a bill or rights, but the state of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights.
China has freedom of speech in their constitution.
The freedom isn't the most important part, but the due process of law that comes around fighting for, maintaining and putting reasonable limits on those freedoms.
Many countries under the Crown do not have freedom of speech. In New Zealand, the live stream video from the Christchurch shooting was illegal to possess or distribute, without seeking specific permission (e.g for academic purposes). Most Kiwi's I've talked to considered this reasonable, and even the Americans who immigrated understood and accepted this limit when they choose to apply for residence or citizenship.
Australia doesn't have freedom of speech or a bill or rights, but the state of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights.
China has freedom of speech in their constitution.
The freedom isn't the most important part, but the due process of law that comes around fighting for, maintaining and putting reasonable limits on those freedoms.