> People outside the US aren't all stupid. There are reasons other countries have different speech laws and not all of those reasons are bad.

This is flawed logic. Consider:

There are reasons other countries have honor killings and not all of those reasons are bad.

Honor killings are outlawed in Europe and also occur in the US, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

So the world is USA (I suppose that is what you mean with America/Americans) and Europe. You have a big big world my friend!

Remember the context in which this conversation is occurring. The article is about European law. Most people reading this live in the USA (yes, I also wish there was a better demonym for people from the US than "Americans", but there isn't).

Kind of a case in point. Your last sentence is arguably anti-American hate speech (pejorative) under the UN’s broad definition [1]:

> any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor

which they note is broader than the typical American definition:

> While the above is not a legal definition and is broader than “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”

[1]: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...

I’m sorry, but no one who wrote that definition would agree with your interpretation. You are being intentionally misleading in an attempt to make a point.

My point is that different people groups might have good reasons for doing things particular ways, but that doesn't mean there aren't better ways of doing things.

But the countries that are being compared to the US are actually good places to live, so the analogy is flawed.

They are worse places to live because of the speech restrictions. I live in the UK.

In your personal opinion. The actual surveyed happiness levels of the average person in those countries' begs to differ.

Well, we disagree. Our ancestors came here to escape your laws. Your way of looking at government and law led you to two continent wide wars which us free speech and gun loving people had to go clean up for you. And it looks like you're working on your third. The results speak for themselves, your reasons for authoritarianism aren't good enough as far as we are concerned, you're so happy with being told what to say, great, I don't see why you're so concerned about how we conduct our business over here. We have our reasons too, and ours are better justified.

Your ancestors were religious nuts who wanted more constraints on society, not less.

It's not until you get to Enlightenment-influenced thinkers like Jefferson and Hamilton that the whole "liberty" thing really gets a purchase. It's just a shame you didn't have a little more Hamilton and a little less Jefferson in the mix. Then you'd realise freedom is a means, not an end.

Your ancestors were religious lemmings following the lies of debaucherous authoritarian religious figures claiming to be representative of god. So what? We didn't want to live how you think we ought to. And you still think we should, no surprise to any of us here. Some things never change.

Most of our ancestors came after independence, again, for the freedom, to escape your laws. Very few Americans can trace their lineage back to the Puritans.

We believe we are right about this and you're wrong. It's engrained deeply in our culture. Why can't you just respect other cultures? Why does everyone have to think like you do?

Freedom is an end unto itself.

Hmm. I don't suppose you happen to know what a social imaginary is, do you?