I guess we're not substantially in disagreement then. Note that the Anti-Nazi laws in Germany were not -iirc- put in place by Germans, but in fact by Americans

I guess we're not substantially in disagreement then. Note that the Anti-Nazi laws in Germany were not -iirc- put in place by Germans, but in fact by Americans. In 1945 these laws made sense to deal with the situation at the time: in a society that had been severely distorted by NSDAP propaganda. As German society has changed, they make less sense now, and people have slowly come around to changing/removing these laws. I'm sure you can see why they are doing so very carefully. I understand the original reason for the laws, and I support the very careful removal/change of the laws. In case you're curious (I was!): it is entirely possible to get a library loan for Mein Kampf in Germany. A quick google shows you might get a heavily annotated version printed by the state of Bavaria, but it's definitely available. I agree with you on b). Nor do I disagree with democratic decision making by the community in general. I might have some opinions on people trying to subvert democratic systems to backdoor censorship and/or propaganda. (See also above, with that odd situation in Germany with quite a story to it.) I think institutions in most western countries are -these days- quite well armored against incidental subversion. That's actually pretty good because that makes it easier to catch before things really go wrong. However, the laws, traditions and processes themselves only slow things down. You still need to actively catch people doing it and work to prevent it, so end of day you still need to maintain (eternal) vigilance.