The problem is that you're not conceiving the boundaries of the system properly. It's best, when creating an authoritarian provision to remove liberty, to assum

The problem is that you're not conceiving the boundaries of the system properly. It's best, when creating an authoritarian provision to remove liberty, to assume that the control of such an mechanism is under the control of a faction you're least aligned with. This is why the US is liberal before it's a democracy. It has meta code defining the boundaries of the democracy, and in the case of speech, asserts that the liberty to speak supersedes any democratic authority. Obviously people looking for an expedient authoritarian mandate to limit speech within the boundaries of what they consider to be acceptable see the existence of free speech as the allowance of that which is outside their boundaries, but they don't actually understand the purpose. The purpose is a hedge against tyranny with a trade-off. People get to say horrible, stupid, counterproductive things, but your political enemies don't get to constrain your ability to express yourself. I also don't understand why the rest of the world is so eager to see this right stripped in America...I would feel extremely claustrophobic if there was no place on earth in which free communication wasn't enshrined in law. Even if Europeans want to mandate their own speech, they still benefit from the hedge against tyranny by such a place as America existing.