The Westboro Baptist Church make an easily graspable example of this. In the US the consensus (if any) seems to be "vile, but within their rights". But they're banned from entering the UK or Canada, because we draw that line differently.
More specifically, the government draws that line differently. And as civil liberties are basically never an election-defining issue, there is no pressure to change or improve things.
Unfortunately this means the UK tends to be run for long periods by social conservatives, because that's the only way to get people who are also fiscal conservatives. I don't think you can draw deep conclusions about the value of free speech to people in Europe or the UK when it's so rarely debated.
Well yes, where 'differently' means 'hypocritically'.
For example, you prevent anti-jihad activists like Robert Spencer from entering the UK to speak, but you're perfectly prepared to allow pro-jihad activists to live in the UK and preach hatred of Jews, women, and non-Muslims in general.
This is the problem with limits on freedom of speech - they allow people doing the limiting to ban speech they don't like, for no other reason that they don't like it.
Sorry, I don't understand. It looks (to an outsider) like politicians are selectively enforcing nebulous 'hate speech' laws to silence people they don't like. How is that not a built-in feature of hate speech laws?
I don't quite understand your complaint. You say the UK doesn't have freedom of speech; you demonstrate that by giving an example of people who do have freedom of speech; you then mention people who are banned from entering the UK, but those people are banned because there is a risk of violence; you then say that that rule is not applied to violent Islamists who live in the country.
Of course it isn't! They live here, border controls are entirely the wrong tool to use for citizens.
Those border controls are used to prevent many Islamists from coming to the country.
And violent Islamists are dealt with using other laws.
A better example of uneven freedom of speech laws might have been the protections that Jews and Christians had (under racial discrimination laws and blasphemy laws) that were not extended to Muslims.
This dichotomy always exists. Very few rights are without their limits. Their front page already makes a perfect example of this: "Our manifesto is clear: we protect your right to privacy and freedom of speech".
If a user wishes to 'doxx' me, my right to privacy and their freedom of speech are at odds. Which wins?
It always surprises me when Americans think their concept of free speech is the only model. Much, if not most of the rest of the western world does not share this view of unchecked speech.
Americans tend not to realise that their free speech laws are sometimes seen as extreme in Europe.
It's not surprising they used a throwaway, they already got downvoted.
(It wasn't me.)