davidnu2

Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.

"Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government.

The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.

The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.

It's European companies that get interfered with by their governments and that is a big part of the problem. There is no such thing as "secret assistance" in the US, and "level playing field" is another bullshit buzzword which means governments get to device about the companies they like best.

Your economic woes are all your fault, own up to them and start changing things, ignorantly blaming others won't get you anywhere.

The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU.

Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.

You're grasping at straws, so is the EU with its recent deluge of grandstanding gestures.

First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10".

Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations.