>Western European countries don't share the same idea of free speech as in America, yet they continue to be democratic.

But are they really?

Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?

> Can you really claim to be democratic when you have wholesale determined that only approved speech can be uttered? How does democracy work when some can speak and others cannot?

Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak. Antisemites for instance contribute nothing of substance to any democracy. Same goes for people insisting on abusing fellow humans based on their sexual orientation or skin colour. How, exactly is democracy hurt by not letting them speak publicly? Their opinions are invalid, not based on any reason (so reasoning with them is pointless), and thus their voice is suppressed, and that's actually a good thing for all those that would otherwise have to suffer harassment and abuse.

    > Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak.

This reads like it's straight out of a dystopian book.

Who gets to define who are the unhelpful fringes? Surely they would never be groups or political leanings I support... That would be bad right?

Thaslts the rub. Everyone is the good guy in their own story, right?

People on the whole also have a poor grasp of history and struggle to grasp how different things really were in the past.

So, youre asserting that democracy works vest when disfavored minorities are suppressed?

How do you imagine the civil rights movement would have worked out if unfavorable positions of the time were suppressed?

How would that work for LGBQ rights?

There is no value in suppressing bad views. Exposing them let's them be recognized for what they are. Suppressing them causes them to grow and fester in the shadows.

What people really fear is that people will not be intelligent enough to discern these bad opinions, that is an entirely different issue.

> So, youre asserting that democracy works vest when disfavored minorities are suppressed

Antisemites aren't a disfavored minority, the Jews they're hating on are.

> How do you imagine the civil rights movement would have worked out if unfavorable positions of the time were suppressed?

Hating on a group of people for who they are isn't an unfavourable position that merits being protected. Or compared to a civil rights movement.

> Exposing them let's them be recognized for what they are

> What people really fear is that people will not be intelligent enough to discern these bad opinions, that is an entirely different issue.

How did that work, historically? It didn't, and still doesn't today - see Trump, Brexit, Orbán. It's not an entirely different issue, it's the same problem - not only is a group of people directly hurt by allowing those who abuse them keep doing so, but others might get impressed for whatever reason and join the hating group's ranks.

> Antisemites aren't a disfavored minority, the Jews they're hating on are.

Are you saying that:

1. the majority of the population of <Western European Country X> are antisemites

or

2. antisemites aren't disfavored

because I would say that both of these are false. Few people are antisemites, and antisemites are strongly disfavored to the point of having their speech made illegal - and "punch a nazi" is a meme.

Punch a Nazi isn’t just a meme, it’s a rule to live by

Right, which would imply that Nazis are pretty damn strongly disfavored.

Being a Nazi isn't a protected characteristic, nor should it be. As commonly understood, a marginalized minority involves traits someone is born with and cannot change, that do not harm others. Being an asshole doesn't make you a marginalized minority, it just makes you an asshole. You're welcome to disagree with this take. Samuel Alito thought KKK members deserved protection in a recent hypothetical that had him laughing about black kkk kids.

"Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak."

- Lenin, probably

> Democracy works best when unhelpful fringes cannot speak.

That's fine, as long as the government doesn't declare you part of an "unhelpful fringe".

> Their opinions are invalid

I am 100% sure that you, personally, hold opinions that are considered "invalid" by a sizeable chunk of society.

That doesn't make it okay for them to shut you up.

Can you claim to be democratic with a two party system, first past the post, gerrymandering, vote suppression...

The US really isn't the model country for democratic participation.

Don't forget a law system that allows judges to basically legislate retrospectively because everything is vague and based on interpretations that can and do change - look at Roe v Wade for instance. Coupled with a deification of their Founding Fathers and Constitution and you have a recipe for a massive legal mess nobody can touch.

Also, Citizens United decision has warped US democratic politics ever since. Essentially opens the flood gates for plutocracy and lobbyists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Of course, if you define "democracy" to mean absolute free speech, then countries without absolute free speech are not democratic, by definition. That's not exactly insightful.

If e.g. the Lepin family can thrive in a socialist country, yes, they obviously are.

Why do you need the freedom to mutter hate speech about protected characteristics? What good does that do for democracy?

What does democracy have to do with it? There are illiberal democracies, and within liberal democracy (the category into which western nations mostly fall into if you ignore covid behavior), there is a wide spectrum of how liberal they are. The democratic aspect has very little to do with free speech