I don't think it is that controversial in the US. There is a small, vocal minority that is against free speech but the overwhelming majority of Americans do not see things that way.
I think Americans support Free speech, but Hate speech, especially when violence is involved, elicits a far different response.
Just ask any poor woman who has had her son arrested for mouthing off in some CounterStrike session about something he's gonna do at school. Just mouthing off trying to look big and all of a sudden police are at his door the next day.
Basically, in the US, you get free speech up to the point where they think your kid is going to shoot up a school full of kids or church full of little old ladies. At that point, there will be guys knocking at your door. I understand the motivation of law enforcement there, I get the point of "terroristic threat" laws. I just don't know if we've calibrated the application of the laws correctly.
But the point is, that this "overwhelming majority of Americans" you were speaking of would tell me to get lost, and tell the police "Good job! Better safe than sorry with these school shooters."
https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/nation/he-says-his-mass...
excerpt:
The case promises to have widespread implications beyond Puy’s felony prosecution. It’s become the first major test of a law strengthened partly in response to the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
At issue: Just what makes a written threat illegal? And are all young people and others who make fake threats about mass shootings — it happens on a fairly regular basis — in serious trouble?
I just tell the young people I work with to not even go there. If someone tries to goad you into something, just don't say it, it's too risky right now. I mean, a prosecution is some chance at getting the laws relaxed I suppose? But the judges and potentially even the jurors all have kids sitting in those classrooms too. So I just don't see it as a particularly fair way to assess the appropriateness of certain laws.
I really believe the various legislatures, in the end, will need to try to recalibrate some of this. (Though I realize that's not likely to happen either. I just think it's slightly more likely than relying on courts that have repeatedly held that yelling fire in a crowded theater, or talking about bombs at airports is not protected speech.)
That phrase was used in a court case to (successfully) justify censoring someone protesting the draft during WWI [1]. We should be skeptical of any limitations on free speech because they will be abused to stifle legitimate speech.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Hate speech is not well defined, something that would be considered offensive in the Silicon Valley might be considered a compliment in New York.
>I don't think it is that controversial in the US. There is a small, vocal minority that is against free speech but the overwhelming majority of Americans do not see things that way.
Looks like you're conflating free speech with hate speech? The parent mentioned "hate speech", but you're talking about "free speech".