No free speech is absolute. There are things you can say in the USA which also get you into trouble. That said, I will agree that more speech is free in the USA.

IANAL, but generally, the speech that is limited in the US is to things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater - i.e. things that might cause general panic.

Speech such as the Holocaust didn't exist doesn't represent immediate harm, and as despicable as it may be, is protected.

There's a huge gulf between absolute free speech and jailing a man for teaching his dog to give a Nazi salute.

“””The 30-year-old taught his girlfriend's pug to react to the words "gas the Jews", which he repeated 23 times in the short video that he uploaded to his YouTube channel last year.””” — https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-salute-...

I think what you see as a huge gulf, I see as a moderate width river.

How so? In the USA that is explicitly protected free speech, no ifs, ands, or buts. That's my point.

I did say the USA allowed more speech than the EU. However, my point with this example is that while the USA may allow this, it is not simply “teaching his dog to salute”, it went far beyond that.

If anything, I might now argue this is case can be considered an example of “fighting words”, a concept which varies between legal jurisdictions but certainly does exist in the USA.

On further consideration, given the trigger phrase the dog was trained on, it might (IANAL) be argued to be “incitement”, which is also a thing which exists in USA law.

> which is also a thing which exists in USA law.

That's exactly it, this is clearly not incitement according to US law. Here are the two important concepts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

According to the latter, the smell test is:

> "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action"

The pug case in no way comes close to either of those clauses. I'd argue, from a legal standpoint, this is absolutely simply teaching his dog to salute. It's crass, rude, and offensive but also perfectly legal under any meaningful definition of free speech.

I’d argue that (2) could apply in certain countries given the current political situation in those countries. However, I am already certain you won’t see it that way at all. I find it rather more interesting that we disagree about the magnitude of the difference between the systems.

And yet don't many European countries deny other genocides (or refuse to call them genocides) for political reasons? At the very least the law should be fairly applied to genocides.

Could you please elaborate?

For political reasons people have used far lighter language with incidents such as the Armenian genocide.