As a lifelong citizen of the United States, I'm accustomed to hearing that the US is the "Land of the Free" and most patriotic celebrations seem to emphasize freedom as one of the unique qualities of life here. However, all of the American freedoms I'm aware of--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.--seem to be found throughout much of Western civilization. Are there any freedoms that are unique to either the United States or the North American continent?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1.1k times
61
5 Answers
66
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a pretty good candidate:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The word "quartered" in this context means "giving a place to stay" (i.e. room and board), most likely at the owner's expense. So the Third Amendment guarantees the freedom to not have the government send peacetime soldiers to live in your house without your consent, nor wartime soldiers to live in your house unless an explicit law says otherwise.
I imagine this right is effectively in place in many other countries, but without the prominence of being explicitly enumerated in their constitutions.
Thunderforge
- 7,707
- 4
- 29
- 64
Roger
- 4,356
- 18
- 31
-
18Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it! – Michael W. Aug 08 '19 at 00:04
-
4Sorry for my bad English, but what does "quartering" mean in this case? Dictionary didn't help. – Vilx- Aug 08 '19 at 10:37
-
5@Vilx- Quartering, in this sense, means "giving a place to stay" or room and board. Meals and a bed. – eidsonator Aug 08 '19 at 10:57
-
30So my brother-in-law National Guardsman doesn't have to stay with us? awesome! :) – April Salutes Monica C. Aug 08 '19 at 14:37
-
5@eidsonator: As April pointed out, it should be noted that quartering occurs when this is done without consent of the homeowner. It was actually done by the British in the build up of the Revolutionary War. – hszmv Aug 08 '19 at 15:21
-
13@April, well, the Constitution only pertains to the actions of the government. It has no jurisdiction over what the rest of your family says. – Seth R Aug 08 '19 at 18:28
-
1@hszmv, no, eidsonator is right. Even if we ignore all sources of evidence outside the amendment, "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner" allows that a soldier may be quartered in peacetime in a house whose owner consents. – Peter Taylor Aug 08 '19 at 18:48
-
2I added an explanation for the word "quartering", since there was confusion in the comments. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. – Thunderforge Aug 08 '19 at 20:48
-
1@Vilx- While the definition has been provided I'll explain why: The normal sleeping place of a soldier is their quarters. Hence, quartering is providing them with quarters. – Loren Pechtel Aug 09 '19 at 01:46
-
I'm actually cool with him visiting; it's just a family joke. – April Salutes Monica C. Aug 09 '19 at 02:41
-
-
7In Sweden it was banned by Magnus III in the Ordinance of Alsnö in 1280. – liftarn Aug 09 '19 at 07:18
-
2I don't know much about laws 'n stuff, but this seems like a really weird law, and an even weirder thing to put in the constitution. – Vilx- Aug 09 '19 at 08:20
-
3Seems like this would be covered by various rights in other countries, even if they are not specifically mentioning soldiers. – user Aug 09 '19 at 11:38
-
1How is this special? Isn't the right to private property pretty common? Even if it's not, the few countries without an army wouldn't find this particularly special. – zundi Aug 09 '19 at 16:42
-
1Doesn't "but in a manner provided by law" effectively negate this? The government can't do it, unless it passes a law saying it can. – Barmar Aug 09 '19 at 16:57
-
1@Barmar That applies to the "nor in time of war" part. The government can't do it during peace, but it can during war only if Congress makes the rules for it. Which would still be an intrusion on your liberty, but given that "we'll be taking your your sons off to fight the war now" was an expected part of that process too, intrusions on wartime liberty can come on a pretty large scale. – Zach Lipton Aug 10 '19 at 04:49
-
This is totally common law worldwide. Not in the constitutions, but in national laws. – Anixx Aug 10 '19 at 15:10
-
@ZachLipton That makes sense, but it's not obvious based on the way the commas are used. But I understand that they may not have used them similarly 200 years ago. – Barmar Aug 11 '19 at 00:14
-
"but in a manner to be prescribed by law"... means they can just make a law that says it's legal and then it's legal. Is this really a unique freedom? Surely that's how the law works everywhere. – Reasonably Against Genocide Aug 17 '20 at 11:50
61
The Right to Bear Arms is found in only three nations: the USA, Mexico, and Guatemala.
While other countries allow their citizens to own firearms, they have no constitutional backing if the governments decide they can no longer allow this.
Carduus
- 17,257
- 3
- 51
- 71
-
2
-
1I thought there were other countries that protected this right as well. In fact, at one time I think Switzerland required its males to attend military training and sent them home with rifles to keep - is that no longer the case? – Aaron Aug 09 '19 at 16:55
-
There's a bit of a disconnect between the wording of the first and second paragraphs of this answer. Ownership falls under "keep arms", not "bear arms". – Peter Taylor Aug 09 '19 at 18:25
-
1Virtually all "old world" countries have historically worked through a monarchy, nobility-based parliamentary system or even dictatorship, and even today the military is generally considered by them as a part or extension or property of the government. Contrast that with the USA, where the people themselves are acknowledged as having a right to arms quite independent of any governmental body. U.S. federal code defines the militia as "all able-bodied males" ages 17 to 45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Some old world countries have since moved nearer to this ideal. – pygosceles Aug 15 '19 at 20:15
-
You aren't guaranteed this in America. There could be a constitutional amendment. – Reasonably Against Genocide Aug 17 '20 at 11:51
21
Please note that the USA labeling itself as the "Land of the Free" is not a recent phenomena, but as old as the country itself. Back in that time most of the rest of the world was composed of absolutist monarchies.
A freedom which is exceptionally strongly protected in the USA is the freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution. In the USA you can freely express your opinion, and cannot be held criminally liable for merely stating an opinion, no matter how offensive some people or groups of people might find that opinion. Of course, this does not protect you from all consequences, like people less likely wanting to be friends with you or hire you or buying your products, but it does protect you from the government imprisoning you.
In simple terms, you cannot be held criminally liable for anything you say, except if it would lead to immediate bodily harm (like shouting "fire" in a crowded place and causing a stampede, or a direct call for physical violence). Unlike many other developed countries, the USA doesn't have a "hate speech" law, so you cannot be imprisoned for merely hurting the feelings of other people.
In contrast, in many developed countries you might be fined or even imprisoned for stating an opinion which certain groups of people claim to be offensive, even if it does not put people into immediate danger. Examples range from disagreement about historical events, to social media posts criticizing immigration policy.
As this is a sensitive topic, please note the following:
- the question asked, and this answer provided an example for a freedom which has unique characteristics in the USA. It's not about whether you agree with those freedoms, or if you agree or disagree about how they are more limited in other countries. It's merely about their existence.
- it's not about whether "hate speech" laws in other countries are a good or a bad thing. It's merely about their existence.
- this answer is about stating an opinion, and whether you could be criminally charged for it. Therefore libel isn't a counterexample, because it's a civil case: the police won't come knocking on your door after they've read something you've written or they've heard something you've said (like they do in some other countries if you write a negative opinion about some groups of people in your blog). A specific individual who claims to have suffered financial harm due to your statements must prove that the statement was wrong, that you reasonably believed it was wrong, and that the financial harm was a consequence of those statements, and then you have to repay that loss. It's completely different from being imprisoned for voicing an opinion the government doesn't like you voicing.
- as it focuses on speech, things other than directly voicing an opinion in a spoken or written form are off topic regarding this answer (like pornography, public nudity).
Also note, that as this protects only against the government punishing you for your views, and because employment laws are less protective of employees in the USA than in most other democracies, it can (and probably does) happen that companies discriminate against employees based on their political views more easily in the USA than in Europe. Still, this answer was not about that, but about the government not being able to imprison you for your political views, which is indeed quite strongly protected in the USA.
vsz
- 2,653
- 2
- 16
- 28
-
3This answer makes a good attempt to make its case in a neutral tone, except this line: "you cannot be imprisoned for merely hurting the feelings of other people" (emphasis added). "Hate Speech" laws are about more than protecting "feelings" - they are intended to protect against direct psychological harm and indirect physical harm (e.g. stochastic terrorism). – starchild Aug 09 '19 at 00:14
-
14@starchild : what hate speech laws are really intended to do is subjective and hotly debated. Supporters claim like what you stated, that it protects against severe harm and it's objectively good. Opponents claim that it's a thinly disguised attempt at fighting thoughtcrime and establishing an oppressive regime where those in power can freely eradicate opposition by abusing the power to arbitrarily decide what they consider hate crime and what they don't. Which view of these is right or wrong is outside the scope of this site to decide. – vsz Aug 09 '19 at 04:09
-
3"must prove that the statement was wrong and that the financial harm was a consequence of those statements" and they must also prove that you knew it was wrong when you made the statement, i.e. that you were lying. Making a claim mistakenly is not slander or libel, unless perhaps it was made with willfully negligent disregard for its accuracy. – reirab Aug 09 '19 at 06:24
-
2@reirab : I agree. However, I tried to keep possible counterexamples as short and simple as possible. – vsz Aug 09 '19 at 06:32
-
1The European Convention on Human Rights lists freedom of expression. So in Europe it's not just a right, it's a human right, and includes more than just speech. Arguably it is superior to what the US constitution grants. – user Aug 09 '19 at 11:42
-
7@user "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." – Ben Barden Aug 09 '19 at 12:58
-
6@user sounds like that one's potentially a lot more restrictive than the US version. – Ben Barden Aug 09 '19 at 12:59
-
1@BenBarden that's at most only as restrictive as US law, e.g. on defamation, true threats, conspiracy, state secrets, confidentiality etc. – user Aug 09 '19 at 13:50
-
@BenBarden The European rules are broader in that they cover "expression", something which is only covered by the US Constitution via SCOTUS decisions to extend the definition of "speech" to less traditional mediums. – user Aug 09 '19 at 13:51
-
3@user "at most only as restrictive" is flatly incorrect. "for the protection of health or morals" and "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" covers a lot of ground that the US law outright protects. Also, "freedom because of SCOTUS interpretation" is still freedom. – Ben Barden Aug 09 '19 at 13:56
-
@reirab "they must also prove that you knew it was wrong when you made the statement" if this is really true, logically it is impossible to prove. Even if the statement is factually wrong, you can't prove anyone knew that when they said it. Even if they'd said the opposite before they could have "forgotten", even if the person next to they just proved the statement wrong they could have been "not listening". Is there anything I could read that shows me how this difficult requirement can be overcome? – Jontia Aug 09 '19 at 15:29
-
3@Jontia I'm using 'prove' in the legal sense, where it meets some specific legal standard of 'proof,' not the mathematical/logic sense where proof is absolute by definition. In civil cases, the standard (in the U.S. anyway) is typically a preponderance of evidence. So the plaintiff would just need to provide evidence that shows the person probably knew that the statement was false when it was made. See the "Important of Intent" section of this article for more info. – reirab Aug 09 '19 at 15:37
-
2
-
@vsz my comment was meant constructively - to point out a potential blind spot, not to argue the merits of hate speech laws. You clearly made a great effort to present the answer neutrally; commendably. The dismissiveness of this line undermines that effort. Of course, you're free to be dismissive, but I didn't think that was your aim. – starchild Aug 09 '19 at 17:21
-
2@paul23: In some states such laws may be on the books, but they are unenforceable because they would be struck down as infringing freedom of religion. – Kevin Aug 10 '19 at 06:08
18
The freedom to discriminate.
Most countries ban discrimination on the basis of not only sex, race, and religion - as the US does too - but also on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, marital status, etc.
In the US, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, marital status, and other variables other than race, sex, and religion, is allowed.
In the US, private employers are free to make hiring decisions on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, marital status, and other variables. Such behavior would be banned in some other countries.
Additionally, companies or entities such as landlords can refuse to serve customers on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, marital status, and other variables. Again, this behavior would be banned in some other countries.
In the US, it is totally legal to refuse to hire a candidate for employment because he is gay, or to refuse to rent to a widowed father because he is single. In other countries, such discrimination would be illegal.
Some specific states or cities within the US have passed laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, marital status and some other variables, but these are not national laws.
webDev
- 327
- 1
- 2
-
5And how would all this make the US more free? The victims of such discrimination certainly don't feel more free in the US. – Polygnome Aug 08 '19 at 12:23
-
35@Polygnome That is not the question. The question is if the US guarantees any unique freedoms - this answer gives an example of that. Whether that freedom comes at the cost of someone else's freedom, or whether it is a morally right freedom to support, is irrelevant to the question. – Birjolaxew Aug 08 '19 at 12:49
-
25I'm downvoting this (which I almost never do with posts), not because I think I disagree with you about the morality, but because there is no such right in the US. States (and in most places municipalities) are perfectly free to ban gender identity discrimination if they care to, as would be the US government. All it would take would be Congress passing a law to tweak Title IX. – T.E.D. Aug 08 '19 at 15:23
-
7This doesn't seem to be "unique" to U.S., see Wikipedia: Women in India for better examples of lawful discrimination. I'm not even sure this qualifies as a "guarantee" either, given nothing in the Constitution explicitly allows this, compared to for example the Bill of Rights. – jv-dev Aug 08 '19 at 16:13
-
4
-
2Not only is there no such 'right' guaranteed in the U.S., but, even if it were, the U.S. would be very, very far from the only country to allow this 'freedom.' This post has a very Euro-centric view. (hint: Europe != "most countries," let alone "everywhere but the U.S.," which is what the question asks about.) This answer should really be deleted. Probably somewhere in the ballpark of 80% of Earth's population does not live in a country with the laws this answer ascribes to "most countries." – reirab Aug 09 '19 at 06:12
-
1
Most countries ban discrimination on the basis of not only sex, race, and religion - as the US does too - but also on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, marital status, etc.
Source???
– qwr Aug 09 '19 at 14:49 -
2My -1 is because this answer rests upon the idea that some other countries ban the actions. There are other answers providing rights that only a few other countries have; that already is not technically unique. Here, "some other countries ban X" does not make the ability to do X unique at all. There are lots of places you can go and legally discriminate against gays and transgenders. There are places where gay, transgender, or believing a certain religion is outright illegal, meaning the government itself discriminates against them. This discrimination right does not seem unique at all. – Aaron Aug 09 '19 at 16:53
-
I downvoted. "Such behavior would be banned in some other countries," the language you frequently use, is a de facto admission that the U.S. is not UNIQUE in this regard. The focus on gay rights is particularly tenuous-- dozens of countries ban homosexuality entirely! – TenthJustice Aug 14 '19 at 14:16
-
Calling attention to the moral core of the issue: Discrimination cannot possibly be immoral in general. To discriminate means "to distinguish between" two or more things. For example, is it discriminatory for convicts to be jailed or otherwise punished for their crimes while law-keepers keep their freedom? Certainly. Is it wrong? Certainly not. Society would disintegrate without such distinctions. Discrimination has become a four-letter word. (Do we discriminate "discriminatory people"?) Refining the language to a point where moral absolutes can be discussed would be extremely valuable. – pygosceles Aug 15 '19 at 22:15
-
Only superficially true. The US mandates tracking ethnic affiliation when you employ people. Many European countries explicitly prohibit storing ethnic information in computer systems. Coupled with US rules about showing reasonable employment of minorities, you can get into legal trouble in the US for not giving minorities in aggregate good jobs, while in Europe you would only get into trouble if you unwisely rejected an applicant on grounds of race and admitted to it. I'd bet that looking at managerial-level positions show an even greater lack for minorities in Europe. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Aug 17 '20 at 01:09
-7
Maybe a different viewpoint:
I'd argue that virtually all of the freedoms offered by the USA are unique. How can I support this position, given that even Russia has a version of the First Amendment?
Their uniqueness stems not from their existence -does anyone actually believe the Russian right to free speech is worth the paper on which it was printed? Their uniqueness is due to the fact that due to our separation of powers, our freedoms are protected from infringement by the very structure of our government. Yes, I agree about the 17th amendment - we can have that discussion in another thread, but we haven't quite arrived at the time to press the "eject" button.
I'm not saying it makes our system perfect, but it does make our freedoms far, far more "real" than those of any other nation, and thus unique.
Obinna Okpolu
- 103
- 4
user2659207
- 25
-
13You use Russia as an example to argue that the American freedom is more "real" than any other country. While it may be better than the system in Russia, you need to provide a better argument to claim it's better than any other country. ;) – JJJ Aug 08 '19 at 22:53
-
2How does the 17th amendment to the US constitution relate to the rest of this answer? – starchild Aug 09 '19 at 00:23
-
6
-
@Daniel, yes, it exists elsewhere, but just like the Russian right to free speech, it exists more in name than in substance. Take England. They're on the list at the link you provided. Perhaps you think that means they have a substantive separation of powers?
You can google what happens if Parliament decides that the English constitution allows murder or etc -- who stops Parliament from unilaterally re-writing the English constitution? Nobody. That's separation of powers in name only, imo. USA has a President with veto power and a Supreme Court that can overturn any legislation.
– user2659207 Aug 10 '19 at 02:16 -
1The supreme court can overturn any legislation in any country and in most countries the head of state has veto power as well (in the UK, the Queen). – Anixx Aug 10 '19 at 15:17
-
Also, though the supreme court can overturn legislation, it cannot overturn constitutionnal amendments, which is what you were talking about with respect to the example of England. – PatJ Aug 10 '19 at 15:27
-
1
-
5@immibis Of course not! It's an immutable document! It's the foundation of the land! Changing it would be sacrilege! Imagine the slippery slope? First you make one innocent modification ("amendment" we could call it) and next thing you know you've got 26 or 27. That would be a crisis! – Lightness Races in Orbit Aug 10 '19 at 16:46
-
1The American historical track record (viz, the Declaration of Independence and the war of the American Revolution and the Civil War fought for the abolition of slavery) are strong indicators for the unique lengths Americans are willing to go to as pioneers in the cause of freedom. The factual separation of powers and checks and balances by design is also a strong argument for the reality and substantiality of American freedoms. We've enjoyed them for longer than any other extant country. Differentiating paper from practice is actually a very good point. – pygosceles Aug 16 '19 at 18:11
The original amendment was supposed to also specifically mention that it's only criminalized when done in the course of a crime and would increase the class of felony, but it seems they may have left that out for fiscal reasons and an absurd mandatory minimum sentence required by other law ($50,000), but that's speculation on my part.
– gormadoc Aug 09 '19 at 14:14You claimed that there was a ban on burkas somewhere in the US but nobody's been found guilty of wearing one yet. It's obviously protected by the 1A and if some zealous prosecutor tried pushing it I'm sure it wouldn't go well, since anti-masking laws are already being struck down.
– gormadoc Aug 09 '19 at 14:54