To Per:
On the Quran case, thanks for the detailed facts. Sounds like Vance presented an oversimplified version -- factually true, but leaving out essential context. As for whether that conduct would be disorderly conduct in the the United States and not protected by speech rights, it would be a closer case. And close cases don't make for international incidents... Having said that, the leap from burning a Quran at a mosque to incitement to violence is a pretty big leap. We've seen illogical "incitement" leaps in the US too (in terms of people claiming speech is responsible for violence), but the legal standard is that for speech to be prohibited it must be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action that is likely to occur.
So I don't know that this was the best example for Vance to use, and frankly, I've always had the impression that Sweden has kept its head more than much of the continent about many things, including rights, an appreciation for liberalism, less dogma, and a pragmatic approach to public problems. It was a late comer to the EU, just joined NATO (for imminent security reasons -- of course Sweden is far more concerned with Russia then, say, Arizonans), and maintains its own currency. Sweden is not Norway or Switzerland, but it does seem not "all in hell or high water" with the Europe project. If it works for Sweden, good. If it doesn't, not good. And I don't see Sweden as the archetype of a European country or one of its power centers -- so when I say Europe, Sweden isn't what's popping into my head. (In fact, "Europe" might be a bad shorthand for the nations that dominate the EU and international affairs + the UK). The one big issue I think for Sweden -- and maybe you disagree entirely -- is that it developed in a largely homogeneous society and that it has received a huge influx of foreigners, specifically muslims, and, well, the impression is that integration isn't going so well, that crime is on the rise and has become a real problem. There is something to Swedish exceptionalism on many levels, and I don't know that it will be maintained.
But Vance could have used more from Germany. Or the UK. I mean the UK is crazy -- showing footage of the Southport riots can lead to criminal charges and jail. Showing it. Without comment even. That's nuts!! The number of arrests is staggering (not all for this, sometimes for "offensive" speech), and it often seems that the police are a lot more concerned with actions 5 steps removed from violence (with many potential non-violent paths) than violence itself.
As for Germany, the idea that one can label a major political party "right-wing extremist" and therefore allow the state (run by opposition coalitions) to be able to "keep an eye on them" in ways that are not typical for how eyes are kept on political parties is nothing short of chilling. Our country, under the Biden administration, tried its own hand at this, though not exactly for political parties. But parents speaking out at school board meetings on the trans issue. And catholics attending Latin Mass. For political parties, it wasn't the same "domestic terrorist" idea, it was just procuring wiretaps through falsified information and lawfare including criminal charges of a nature that would have never been brought in another circumstance. What's important to keep in mind is that Biden was trying very much to import a "German" model (which is also the model of the Masters of the Universe when they get in their regimes) into America, and it was rejected by the public and revived a candidate (Trump) that would have otherwise disappeared as a footnote. [People really underappreciate how much of this activity inspired hold-nosers, never-Trumpers, and independents to see Trump as the avatar prey of this leviathan that they, too, opposed.]
60 minutes (CBS, USA tv new magazine show), just did a piece on Germany's policing on internet speech. And believe me, the reporter was *sympathetic* to what Germany was trying to do -- almost impressed by it -- but it is terrifyingly illiberal, and its a terrific example on how people use so-called civility to excuse criminalization of speech that may very well be the kind of discourse that's essential to a free society. It may get justified by examples where speech is beyond what everyone might consider "appropriate" (even when many think it shouldn't be criminal), but it is and will be applied far broader than that. The line is drawn by the government, the government is the object of criticism. (I note that even in your post, Per, you suggest that speech saying some group should be kicked out of Sweden is a call to violence or to exterminate those people -- how can you tell vs a policy of mass deportation, which you wouldn't support, but has to be part of a political discourse).
Anyway, in this 60 minutes piece (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc), they start with a predawn raid into a guy's house who reposted a "racist cartoon" on the internet. And then she interviews state prosecutors, who say its illegal to *insult* people on the internet. The fine might be higher for an internet insult. *Including insulting politicians.* Posting "malicious gossip" is also criminal. And incitement (which who knows how that's defined). Reposting is as much a crime than original content. False quotes, also criminal.
These prosecutors laugh about the fact that they seize and forfeit the phone and people are like "what?" (fines and jailtime (for 2d offenses) can follow).... They laugh about the size of the fines (3,500 euros).
3,500 cases prosecuted a year. Hundreds of complaints a week.
The prosecutors say "its okay to debate policy, but don't call the politician a jerk...." The prosecutors say this is how you protect democracy (or at least that's how the reporter summarized their position)....
All of this justified with "safe space" theories, and so others will be free to debate without the fear of being insulted.
At any rate, this is all totally nuts in my view. That's not to say that the propagation of ideas can't result in some messy and bad stuff, including violence. See the printing press and the reformation and the hundred years war and the American revolution and the and the and the and the. But the censoring of ideas results in messy and bad stuff, too. See every totalitarian regime and the lengths they go to punish dissent -- all "legal" punishment because you made the spreading of ideas illegal....
As for your quip about the Americans requiring no nazi party after WW2, fair point, well made. And I think denazification was a good idea! But here's the place we are -- a party that has adherents who have ties to nazi or neo-nazi parties is not the nazis! And its been 80 years. And remember, anti-semitic speech? Illegal in the Weimar. The Nazi party? Banned in the Weimer for a time. But the nazis came to power democratically, so they should have been illegal! (Yes, but the problem was there were LOTS OF NAZIS is Germany, lots of commies in Germany, and the liberals and socialists-through-democracy group couldn't make convincing arguments in the democratic process.) But the broader point is that banning extremists doesn't work if the extremists appeal to the people -- and a great way for extremists to appeal to the people is by making a martyr of them or lumping those who are close-to-but-not extremists into the same group as extremists. And that move builds on itself, so the next adjacent group becomes the same. And the next. and the next. So that *populism* becomes a threat to democracy. And everything is fascism. Or racism. Or extremism.
There are no guarantees in life, but political inclusion tends to work better than political exclusion. And whether someone is an 'extremist or not, they are part of the polity, their concerns are real, and writing them off because they are concerns of 'ists is foolish. Writing it all off as a belief of an extremist makes it impossible to think straight or speak straight about things like mass immigration, which is a real issue to 'ists and non 'ists alike.
Last, on the "freedom" index, I don't find much useful in the overlysimplified surveys conducted by interest groups. Even those that I mostly like, like Cato (who is a libertarian group). You don't know the criteria, how they weighted different measures, you don't know how they gathered their information, you don't know the recency of that information, etc. I don't know how its helpful to a discussion on this topic.
