[wahern]

How is disagreeing with history any different than disagreeing with a fact, like whether nor not a theater is on fire.

Setting aside other exceptions, like liable, the rule in AngloAmerican law concerns inciting or otherwise causing imminent harm. What constitutes imminent harm has varied widely over the course of U.S. history. Many people were sentenced by courts under the Alien & Sedition Acts, the argument being that seditious speech _might_ lead to imminent harm. The same things happened over 120 years later when people handing out anarchist and communist leaflets were regularly thrown in jail with even less pushback by society.

These days the interpretation and application of imminent harm is much narrower than it has ever been, and indisputably ahistorical. The conception of free speech that Americans enjoy today didn't exist for most of the history of the country and likely most of the history of the world.

In the context of Germany's history, it's not obvious to me (and shouldn't be obvious to anybody who gives it serious consideration) that their standard is intrinsically, objectively inferior.

I happen to disagree with it, but I don't think it's unreasonable on its face. And I'll be the first to admit that my preference for the modern, American conception is largely a function of my being an American and having internalized certain normative judgments unique to not just this country, but unique to the post-WWII political and legal context and in many respects unique to the past couple of generations.