Free speech laws are very different in Europe than in the US. They seek to root out hate speech, we protect it under the belief that it is more important to protect free speech for all than to suppress the hateful speech of the few. Theoretically, hate speech can be identified and refuted in the marketplace of ideas. We would also rather keep the burden of proof on the accuser rather than the accused (which incidentally is one of the reasons the Verizon ruling is so troubling):

Based on a treaty that went into effect in January, Europe is attempting to shut out racist and xenophobic "hate" Web sites.

....The members of the Council of Europe (COE) are signatories to the 2001 Convention on Cybercrime — which was conceived to deal with Internet crime such as virus attacks and Web site hacking. Just last week, 12 out of 44 of the COE's member States signed an additional protocol to the Convention that has a very different purpose.

....The Council argued, in its report on the new protocol, that it is a necessary response to the fact that "[t]he emergence of international communication networks like the Internet provide certain persons with modern and powerful means to support racism and xenophobia and enables them to disseminate easily and widely expressions containing such ideas."

....The protocol broadens the treaty's scope to cover offenses relating to distribution of racist or xenophobic propaganda via computer. According to a COE statement, it will "eliminate racist Web sites from the Internet and define and criminalize hate-speech on computer networks."

What counts as "racist" or "xenophobic" speech? The protocol reaches "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors."

page 1 | 2