EU may force FB to censor content that makes fun of Austrian mayors

[Velasco]

Lastly I 100% believe EU Hate Speech laws are totally counterproductive and yes a violation of free speech rights as well. Restricting speech only makes that viewpoint more popular not more unpopular.

The answer to stop far-right extremism is not to restrict speech but to implement policies that keep their view points in the fringes.

While I concur freedom of speech is sacred and restrictions may be counterproductive,  freedom is not limitless. I don't know if there's an equivalent sentence in English, but there's one in my country that comes to say my personal freedom ends where your freedom begins. I think hate speech legislation follows this principle. Regardless the specific elements of this case and the debatable aspects of this piece of legislation, I think it's necessary some regulation. The question, of course, is where to draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. That's always a matter of endless controversy. However, I think there are clear limits such as incitement to violence. Racial, religious or ideological hatred may be interptrered as incitement to violence. Such things are not easy to determine and I tend to think in case of doubt freedom of speech must prevail.

I could agree with you that good policies are the best remedy that keeps extremists at bay, slthough I suspect we could disagree on which ones are good.

Also, as a citizen of the EU I have many criticism to make. The EU has many defects (bureaucracy, lack of internal democracy, complex decision making, etcetera), but its positive aspects in terms of peace and prosperity are undeniable. Despite its many problems and perennial crises, it's necessary and I hope it survives to be reformed in s positive direction. I am tired of certain Euroskeptic garbage (I'm referring to people like Trump and Farage). Never forget that World Wars broke out and Hitler came to power when Europe was a continent of rival nations.

[Velasco]

This is what our courts said about this issue:

he Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio


This is 100% the correct decision, the government should have no right to stop someone from speaking no matter how hideous they are unless they can prove they are directly inciting imminent lawless actions.

This is not an issue where I believe there is a middle ground at all , it should be as close to absolute as possible , and a nation that tries to limit this freedom even the way they do in Europe is more of a fascist type of action(not saying the nation itself , just the action) than a nation that allows it like the US.

Personally I think it's not a bad ruling, although  I have more doubts than you on the question. The Court ruled the KKK leader was not going to perprtrate imminent violence or lawless action. Still, there exists hate speech and the incitement of "abstract violence" may inspire others to commit violent or lawless actions. The Court has set the limit on "imminent lawless actions" and has set a precedent in the US. However European countries have their own legal systems and there are European courts where anyone affected by hate speech legislation can appeal, even invoking that interesting Brandenburg Vs Ohio precedent. I think the fact that hate speech is more limited in Europe does not entitle anyone to say there exists a fascist type of control implemented by our democratic institutions. You should consider the historical precedent of fascist authotitarianism and the Nazi horror make Europeans more sensible to hate speech.

[Velasco]

Never forget that World Wars broke out and Hitler came to power when Europe was a continent of rival nations.

I suppose you're right, Europe's only options are world wars or united under a garbage bureaucracy.  What's wrong with them?

It's not that the US are lacking of problems, either institutional or as a society. Europe is arguably the best place in the world to stay, with high living standards and a reasonable welfare state, as well reasonably free of violence if compared with the USA. These conditions are variable and depend on the country, but they are reasonably widespread despite EU bureaucrats... or should I say we enjoy relatively high standards partially thanks to the existence of the EU?