[olivierduval]

Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law

In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly

However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).

"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)

[_heimdall]

This has always been a huge hangup for me with laws in general. If a law isn't clearly spelled out enough to be able to know when I would be in the wrong before I act (or speak), I'm effectively at the whims of the legal system and I can't avoid it.

The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.