[mortarion]

Countries in Europe (and most of the world) have positive constitutions, which defines what the government "must do" (for its citizens), whilst the USA has a negative constitution that defines what the government "cannot do" (against its citizens).

What constitutes hate speech is carefully defined in the constitutions of EU countries. Politicians can't just amend or extend the definition at will, except in the UK which has a strange system of laws and not a constitution like you're used to in the USA or in the EU.

In Europe we recognize that Hitler came to power by abusing free speech, which is why using the same rhetoric now can land you in trouble with the law. We also recognize that the pen is mightier than the sword and that unfettered speech can be used to persuade groups of people to use violence against other groups of people.

[mancerayder]

>In Europe we recognize that Hitler came to power by abusing free speech,

I've heard this again and again - no one mentions that the Nazis had roving bands of men intimidating people like a mob, and that Hitler came to power because of a false flag operation that burned the Reichstag.

But we should forget the physical threats of the Nazis and focus on thin parallels to their ideas, under the guise 'hate'.

When you do that, you end up with people arbitrarily deciding what's hateful and not, depending on their own values. Chants about English culture threatened by Muslims, hate, chants about Israel and Jews dominating the country, not hate (courtesy of UK hate speech protections).

[frumplestlatz]

Hitler was literally banned from public speaking for two years.

The Nazis came to power through widespread normalized political violence, not speech, and banning Hitler from speaking did nothing but further undermine the legitimacy of the government’s mandate to rule.

[RupertSalt]

Joseph Goebbels would have been disappointed to learn that his office was superfluous and irrelevant!