> We, or at least Americans, care deeply about free speech, not because it protects the weak, but because it is a fundamental human right.
Thanks for recognising that this level of free speech is pretty much an American cultural thing and that most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.
English mewspapers talk about how important it is for them to keep their freedoms when they operate under, to Americans, restrictive laws.
And "we're a bit worried about the unpleasant parts of the Internet" is something baked in from the early 90s when commercial providers of Internet started offering services. See the various swearing filters; or Compuserve carrying but delisting a range of porn Usenet newsgroups.
http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/Compuserve
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/hsv.general/5BiIjb...
http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/ils310/msg00266.html
And see also the AUPs of some ISPs that provide restrictions on top of US law about not harassing users (in some but not all AUPs) or not sending unsolicited bulk email (in most AUPs, even before there were laws about spam).
A blog post about the early AUPs of different services would possibly be useful.
Your mention of fundamental human rights is a bit odd; the US (for constitutional reasons) has not fully signed up to the UDHR. The freedom of speech bit is article 19.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
But the US trashes articles 3, 4 (arguably), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16(3)(arguably), 17(2).
I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important than the officer just not taking it in the first place.