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?

  • 41
    While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Aug 7, 2019 at 18:40
  • 16
    Land of the free is a relic from 19th century, when it's not like non-monarchical democracies were really that common. If you forget slavery that is of course.
    – mirh
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 16:24
  • 9
    Unique as of right now? Or unique when they were first codified?
    – bta
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 16:46
  • 4
    @emory - Are you certain? I am aware that many people have advocated for them, but I don't believe it's ever been put into law, at least at the state level. Maybe some municipalities have them. There was a rule that would have prevented wearing one in the US House, which I believe has since been changed.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 21:29
  • 4
    You should have asked this question 230 years ago.
    – RonJohn
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 22:54

5 Answers 5


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.

  • 18
    Great 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.
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 0:04
  • 5
    @Vilx- Quartering, in this sense, means "giving a place to stay" or room and board. Meals and a bed.
    – eidsonator
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 10:57
  • 30
    So my brother-in-law National Guardsman doesn't have to stay with us? awesome! :) Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 14:37
  • 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
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 18:28
  • 7
    In Sweden it was banned by Magnus III in the Ordinance of Alsnö in 1280.
    – liftarn
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 7:18

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.

  • 2
    Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Aug 7, 2019 at 20:26
  • 1
    I 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
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 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". Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 18:25
  • 1
    Virtually 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. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Some old world countries have since moved nearer to this ideal.
    – pygosceles
    Commented Aug 15, 2019 at 20:15
  • You aren't guaranteed this in America. There could be a constitutional amendment. Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 11:51

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.

  • 3
    This 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
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 0:14
  • 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
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 4:09
  • 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
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 6:24
  • 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
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 12:58
  • 6
    @user sounds like that one's potentially a lot more restrictive than the US version.
    – Ben Barden
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 12:59

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.

  • 5
    And how would all this make the US more free? The victims of such discrimination certainly don't feel more free in the US.
    – Polygnome
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 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
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 12:49
  • 25
    I'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.
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 15:23
  • 7
    This 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
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 16:13
  • 4
    "Most countries" [citation needed] Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 22:00

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.

  • 13
    You 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
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 22:53
  • 2
    How does the 17th amendment to the US constitution relate to the rest of this answer?
    – starchild
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 0:23
  • 6
    Separation of powers exists in many other countries.
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 17:21
  • 1
    The 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
    Commented Aug 10, 2019 at 15:17
  • 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! Commented Aug 10, 2019 at 16:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .