> ...The obvious example of German restrictions...
You're right that this is an obvious example, in fact I would say that it's too obvious and doesn't really make your point for you. Of course any right-thinking nation that had committed vast and terrible atrocities during a major conflict could be reasonably expected to try to suppress the kind of rhetoric that led to those things happening in the first place. I don't see that as a freedom of speech issue - rather it underscores the point that freedom of speech does not equate to the right to incite violence or cause harm. Or is this the point that you're making? That a modern Hitler could easily come to power in the US and that this is somehow desirable? I realise I'm being somewhat hyperbolic but if protection of the right to incite violence or cause harm is 'the league' that the US operates in, then I don't understand why any sane person would want that.
You're right that this is an obvious example, in fact I would say that it's too obvious and doesn't really make your point for you. Of course any right-thinking nation that had committed vast and terrible atrocities during a major conflict could be reasonably expected to try to suppress the kind of rhetoric that led to those things happening in the first place. I don't see that as a freedom of speech issue - rather it underscores the point that freedom of speech does not equate to the right to incite violence or cause harm. Or is this the point that you're making? That a modern Hitler could easily come to power in the US and that this is somehow desirable? I realise I'm being somewhat hyperbolic but if protection of the right to incite violence or cause harm is 'the league' that the US operates in, then I don't understand why any sane person would want that.