[sofixa]

> We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws

In a very narrow interpretation, yes. Everyone with a modicum of common sense would realise that countries with laws on the books against offending religions / inciting hatred against them are still more free than a country where the fucking Bible is cited in court rulings and political speeches, and where there are active laws prohibiting non-religious people from holding office.

One is for keeping the peace, the other is actively meddling religion and politics.

> baseline level of freedom of speech

Being unable to spout Nazi ideology is technically a restriction on freedom of speech, yes. But again, anyone with a modicum of common sense (and a bit of historical understanding) would understand this to be a good thing.

[rafram]

The far right is ascendant in Europe; obviously restrictions on speech haven't prevented that. I am Jewish, I have a strong dislike of Nazis, and yet I think Nazis legally being able to "spout Nazi ideology" is a healthy thing for our society. Criminalizing speech doesn't stop people from holding abhorrent beliefs.

This is an aspect of our country that I think most Americans are proud of. Some relevant reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

[sofixa]

> yet I think Nazis legally being able to "spout Nazi ideology" is a healthy thing for our society

How did that end last time? We know where it ends, we know there's nothing redeeming. Nobody needs Nazis, there is nothing to be gained by engaging with them or giving them a platform.

[rafram]

Weimar Germany had laws against hate speech!

[sofixa]

That they did not apply. They let a guy who tried to overthrow the government free to run for election again. This kind of thing should never be allowed. Someone who physically demonstrates they have no business in a democratic society doesn't belong in it.