rockafireexplosion

The US has a more expansive legal definition of what constitutes free speech than do many European countries, and that is a fact. I'm not here to argue that either approach is inherently better, but not allowing certain kinds of ideas to disseminate is in the most literal sense a restriction of the freedom of speech. The justification for these laws is that they are in the public interest (for precisely the reason you just mentioned), which may well be true, but narrowing the scope of what kind of speech is permissible does reduce individual freedom (as does any kind of law). Even the United States restricts certain kinds of speech in the interest of public safety. However, the US does allow for certain kinds of speech that are not permissible in certain other countries (e.g. Holocaust denial, open use of Nazi symbols), which is why freedom of speech can be described as more broadly protected there. It is not a matter of propaganda.

Hi David! Thanks for the AMA! Does there seem to be any scenario under which Crimea could be returned to Ukrainian rule?