In Canada for example the laws are quite controversial, regardless of political affiliation:
> The controversy around the issue lies in the reasoning behind Canada’s top court decision that proclaimed Bill Whatcott, a Christian evangelist, guilty of hate speech because of the language he used to refer to homosexuality.
> But in order to protect homosexuals from being perceived negatively, the Supreme Court went too far in infringing on freedom of speech, and of religion, critics said.
> This criticism came from both left and right, caused by the way the judge in charge of the case explained the ruling.
> “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction,” the judge wrote at the time.
https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-to-use-controversial-suprem...
Likewise in other countries, such as Scotland:
> ... famed comedian Rowan Atkinson and 20 others, including actors, philosophers, and writers, working with Humanist Society Scotland, see it as posing danger to freedom of expression, because the new legislation aims to introduce the offense of “stirring up hatred” without taking into account if hatred was the intent, bringing with it the danger of criminalizing and jailing people simply for their controversial views, the article said of the artists’ concerns.
https://reclaimthenet.org/scotland-hate-speech-bill-pushback...
In terms of the difference, please let me know what that difference is. I believe that US democracy is on fire. Why am I prohibited from raising awareness of this political issue in the public venue of my choice?