[Telepathic Intruder]

Who decides what the “limits” of free speech are? To protect personal honor? That could mean anything.

[Olog-hai]

1. Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
   
   
2. These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honor.
   
   
3. Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

— German Basic Law, Article 5

According to this, it’s the powers that be who decide the “limits” of free speech (which is of course oxymoronic on its face).

This article reads too much like the USSR constitutions:

In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law:

1. freedom of speech;
2. freedom of the press;
3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
4. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

— 1936 constitution Article 125

In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

— 1977 constitution, Article 50

The glaring contrasts between these declarations of rights to free speech and the Bill of Rights’ First Amendment are quite stark. It’s clear why Obama hates the US version and likes the other versions as outlined above instead because they are self-nullifying.