I don't think you'll ever see this, but have an answer nonetheless: You're jumping to conclusions a bit. > nanny-state measures (protect children from bad infl

I don't think you'll ever see this, but have an answer nonetheless: You're jumping to conclusions a bit. > nanny-state measures (protect children from bad influences) Putting age labels on things is all fine and good, but if kids can go to any store and legally buy things like the Doom series, or Manhunt, without requiring their parents, then that's a bit of a farce. All germany has done in that respect is to force stores to actually check ages, and not publicly advertise things with certain contents. Adults can still get anything they like, and give it to their children if they feel like it. > and other don't seem to be working (hate speech is rampant in Germany) Honestly curious, how so? I won't deny we still have some bad elements, and every one in a while (once a year or so) a politician may say a dumb thing and get lambasted to hell and back; but i don't think we have anything comparing to the outright white power hitler fetishist groups in the usa, or Glenn Beck, or Westboro Church. > I don't think protecting citizens against bad e-mail service counts as a critical protection measure You seem to have misunderstood. Citizens aren't being protected against "bad email service". Citizens are being protected against a being entirely blocked out of ever reaching human contact when they have legit grievances against a company doing business with them. Read the very top post where the court's stance is explained.