For an essay that focuses on empiricism to answer questions, this one is sorely missing counterfactuals. We have: > Luckily we have international precedent to

For an essay that focuses on empiricism to answer questions, this one is sorely missing counterfactuals. We have: > Luckily we have international precedent to help us answer those questions. Do they support the idea that hate speech law stops hate, far-right extremism, fascism? and then the study of Germany and France, which both have the laws, and where the situation is relatively bad. But without an attempto to compare the situation in countries with relevant laws to those which don't have them, how can we attribute the result to those laws?