[mowenz]

>where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society?

The test for what values we uphold should not always be what has proven to be a good outcome for ourselves or for society.

Your same argument could be used against many human rights. What about torture: can you give me a concrete example of how US torture was bad for society?

Extending your argument from society to individuals, we make the worst tragedies possible. It is an important lesson from the history of Germany itself, in the quote: 'When they came for them, I did not speak, because I was not them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me."

There is value in upholding human rights on principle.

Once you eliminate free speech in cases where it is convenient, you no longer have a free speech principle.

In Germany the thought police has brought people to court for things such as Facebook groups for people who don't like refugees. Maybe that seems fair to you, but then again a comedian also faced prosecution for a poem about Erdogan. Now imagine prosecution for a poem belittling Trump. It's the possibility of that outcome that we want to stay as far away from as possible.

Besides, it seems difficult to believe a legitimate role of government is to protect you from words, and words alone.

[tmalsburg2]

But who gets to decide what constitutes a human right and why is hate speech a human right in your opinion? Hate speech hurts people, please explain why it should still be considered a human right.

[mowenz]

The test to outlaw something should not be because it hurts someone. Just because you know some people will drive, or drive drunk, and this will kill people, does not mean you should ban driving, or alcohol.

Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.