Technically, these two exceptions exist in U.S. law as well, despite the fact that they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. You can be charged inciting a riot (public order) or with obsenity (immoral speech). Of course, violating the public order could easily be defined as criticising official policy. The actual application of these things will be defined over time by the government and the courts. The liberal stance of the Supreme Court in the 60s and 70s is really what allows people in America to say things like "fuck the government" without going to prison. A different time and place would (and did) offer different results from the same law. The nature of Iraq will be defined by Iraqis.... with one huge gapping problem:
One minor correction, which I do think is significant. US law does not see speech like obscenity as "immoral speech", it sees it as "worthless speech". There is a difference. None of the court decisions are based on the morality of the speech, at least not directly. It's based on things like "no social value" or "trivial social value". While it does attempt to define morality in that manor, I don't know of any Supreme Court case that actually does attempt to define morality. It tackles the argument from another direction. If its "worthless speech", it's not protected. All the definitions surround defining it based on that.
