There is much more to freedom of speech than just what the first amendment covers. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' not 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to be free from government interference in saying it'. America has identified freedom of speech as a sort of fundamental good - so instead of being truthful about it being a qualified right, seem to instead try to redefine the term so that anything not covered by by first amendment isn't 'true' freedom of speech. The government didn't interfere, but as a practical matter they probably had more trouble getting their 'mesage' out than opposition groups in countries without freedom of speech that could more easily rely on international resources.Īnd that's not neccesarily a bad thing. For example, rightly or wrongly, parlor had trouble obtaining services. However, its entirely possible to still be quite restricted in your speech as a practical matter under american style 'freedom of speech'. You do have some relative, qualified freedoms from government interference. Yes, that's correct - you don't have absolute freedom of speech in my house.

Mit tor relays