So much wrong here where to start....
>>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.
Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally.
I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation.
>>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.
This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada.
The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution.
>>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.
US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level.
On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense.
>>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does.
Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.