And even if it is common, in my opinion the very idea of free speech is that it may go beyond the commonly held notions of acceptability. It seems kind of pointless otherwise - what's widely accepted already shouldn't really need much protection.
Eg. penalization of blasphemy in theocratic societies surely passes the test of "freedom of speech" if you define it that way.
Merkel's done the right thing: She has tried to answer it, and bring the laws into line with what the Germans think currently think is just. (With which I may or may not agree, it doesn't matter, I'm not German.) Her attempt may or may not be a good attempt, but she did try. The Americans talk about the first amendment and turn Facebook into something that looks ever more like a combined lawmaker and court.
Merkel's government was able to propose law changes and have them be voted on by the legislature. Replacing government was not needed.
Which you can see in Germany — people use the legal machinery to regulate speech on Facebook. Publish a swastika on Facebook and people will complain about you to the police (perhaps via Facebook), and the prosecutor will apply the law of the land. That you could evade it is true, that most people trust the law is significant.
Merkel's government proved nothing. Certainly not that government-mandated censorship is any more altruistic than regular government censorship.
There's a strong fear right now that the EU countries are devolving right back into their old authoritarian ways.
The American answers to these questions aren't the same as they are in other nations.
While I don't fully agree with some of my nation's answers to these questions, at least I theoretically have a democratic voice in what those standards and laws are. But some private company in a foreign nation with foreign beliefs is unaccountable from my perspective.
Even if I boycott it, it doesn't mean much so long as my neighbors, friends, and family are using it.
Is it a matter of free speech though?
If you walk into a bank and say "load the bag with money, or I'll blow up the place", do you risk prosecution on the grounds of (abusing) free speech? After all what you did, essentially, was utter some words. (The bomb might never have existed).
What if the government passed a law to the effect of "you can't say the banking system is vile and corrupt because it may encourage people to rob banks"?
It's a slippery slope of sorts, and a line should be drawn, preferably grounded in some logical principle. I don't have a good answer off the top of my head; just food for thought.
If I tell you that smoking leads to cancer, it's also a slippery slope type of argument: after all, having smoked 1, 100 or even a 1,000 cigarettes you'll still be fine, most likely.
It is not. It is a statement of fact, proven by numerous studies.