[dktekno]

In many european nations, including my home country Denmark, have limitations on the freedom of speech despite having a constitution that does not allow such laws to exists.

We have a constitution which has a paragraph 77 saying:

Everybody are allowed to in print, writing and speech to publisize ones thoughts, however under the responsibility of the courts. Censorship and other preventive precautions can never be reinstated.

This means everybody are, according to the constitution, allowed to say whatever they want, and the only limitation the constitution sets is that you must tell the truth in the court (as the law says "under the responsibility of the courts").

But yet many european nations have limitations on the freedom of speech, and the danish are:

Those who publicly ridicule or insults any in this country legally established religious societies believes or worshipping, are fined or imprisoned up to 4 months.

?

I dont understand...

At first we have a constitution, but the laws under the constitution appears to be above the constitution!

[Der Freiheitsucher]

It is a common principle of constitutional law that there is a hierarchy inside the Constitution intself.

There are rules and there are principles, and the principles are above the rules.

A constitutional "principle" is pretty difficult to demonstrate, but in many cases it is obvious at first glance that such principle is real. In this case, you have the constitutional principle of respect, which is conveyed by the charter itself and not necessarily one specific article. The principle of respect is above any other constitutional mandate, except maybe another principle.

In this case, the article which consagrates the free speech is also under the idea of respect. This means that if you have to violate such specific article in order to promote constitutional principles, then that's what you have to do. You will find many things inside a single Constitution that seem to be self contradictory.

Another way of looking at it is through a type of interpretation called "Constitutional Harmony". Basically, modern jurists have tried to make it so these constitutional rules which seem to contradict each other, be undersoot in a harmonic way. All working for the same objective. An article which consagrates the fundamental right of respect and an article which consagrates free speech can easily be harmonized by seeing them as working for the "better good", and even if your second example seems to contradict your first, it is trying to ultimately secure the idea of personal freedom.

I dont understand...

Hopefully now you do.

[dktekno]

I hate america for what it is, but I do like its constitution. Because:

Do you know what the difference is between the european constitutions and the american constitution?

The European constitutions gurantees freedom of speech.
The American constitution gurantees freedom after speech.

[Le Rouge]

The Constitution of Denmark in reality says something quite different from what you have written.

Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

The law...

Those who publicly ridicule or insults any in this country legally established religious societies believes or worshipping, are fined or imprisoned up to 4 months.

Is not in conflict because you have the freedom to ridicule or insult religious societies but you are held answerable to a court of justice.