You can't, though. You can call for violence, and that is already against the law. The conflation of words with violence is dangerous.

That's mostly what he was talking about, though. The differences between freedom of speech in the US and in the EU are minimal, mostly just the result of different legal traditions and the US paying more superficial lip service to freedom of speech.

Put up some ISIS propaganda on the web and in your front yard, though, and you'll be arrested in the US very quickly. Do the same with classical 3rd Reich Nazi propaganda, and they'll be more lenient in the US.

Speech is prohibited in most EU countries mostly for direct, intentional, and credible calls for violence, especially if they actually result in actual violence.

In more restrictive countries like Germany, direct calls for acting against the constitution as well as overt intentional discrimination against whole groups of people are also restricted but generally dealt with in a more lenient way. The hurdles are high, except for the clear-cut cases like showing Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial, because in these cases the judge doesn't have to deliberate a lot about the intentions of the delinquents and whether they support the German constitution or not. It's much harder to prosecute less clear cases. (But e.g. symbols of certain rocker gangs and the gangs themselves have been successfully prohibited in the past.)

>The conflation of words with violence is dangerous.

That's a bit of a strawman. Of course, ordering and encouraging a crime can be punished, not just actually committing the crime, or else almost every mob and gang related crime boss would remain free forever. There is no significant difference in that respect between US and EU.

I personally believe that membership in a group should never be reason for punishment, and there was an extensive debate about this in the 70s when Germany introduced such "guilty by association" laws in an attempt to fight terrorism by (mostly) the RAF.

In a comment a few levels up, the user said s/he's free to speak as long as it doesn't incite violence or discriminate. Inciting violence is illegal in all western countries I'm aware of.

When questioned about it, the user gave the response I quoted from. S/he either didn't address why discriminatory speech shouldn't be free, or is equivocating it with calls to violence (in that s/he believes it leads directly to violence).

I can't speak for the user, but I have seen numerous examples of people who justify banning "discriminatory speech" (or "hate speech") as equivalently calling for violence. And these same people often have a very low bar for what qualifies as "discriminatory" (e.g. "I disagree with what this person is saying").

Nobody's questioning whether or not direct calls to violence should be illegal, but my point is that we should be very clear that other kinds of speech (even if abhorrent or reprehensible) cannot be hand-waved away as being in the same category.

Absolutely not. A lot of the law is written by the bourgeois elite who don't want the staus quo they benefit enormously from to be shaken up. Change is done outside of the law and the majority populace if decided necessary has every right to break those laws in the circumstance that those bourgeois elite will not help them out or give them the change they want.

Like asking for a permit for a protest after your government & police force has been oppressing you for decades or centuries. You don't ask for a permit to protest anything serious.

(I would like an explanation to my GP's comment being flagged other than "I would like this to not be true")

You stated that the EU doesn't have freedom of speech, but your link shows is specifically about Austria and how the ECHR isn't going to overrule it on this case. Pretty much every EU country has some form of free speech, and the ECHR sets a baseline on what's expected from member countries. It seems like Austrian law is running pretty close to that baseline but, as much as I'd personally prefer that case went the other way, supranational institutions need to draw a line between what they can and can't do.

EDIT: It's the total opposite, I apologize. She was convicted for her speech, but the courts found her speech to disrupt the religious peace, and not freedom of opinion. Turns out disrupting religious peace is illegal in Austria, which is a stupid law.

> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a woman convicted by an Austrian court of calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not have her freedom of speech rights infringed.

Now, I don't particularly like the Daily Mail, but given that you are expressing the exact opposite of the situation described in the article I would expect some sort of argument. It appears you misunderstood the article's title?