U.S. Free Speech vs. EU Free Speech

PrefaceI believe this debate arose from a hangout discussion in which I defended a pro-Europe position and in which Max noted his willingness to debate me on topic. I am, to be honest, quite excited and nervous about debating Max on this topic, and I am looking forward to a high quality back-and-forth. For however cute they are, Axolotls are pretty intimidating debaters.I would ask Max not to accept until the afternoon of Feb 28th. Because this is a highly controversial, bias-prone topic, I have nominated several great judges to serve for this debate, namely, TUF, Proph, Raisor, Tej, DK, Whiteflame, Zaradi, Hayd, and Endark. Judges, by accepting their nominations, agree to disregard any preexisting opinions they may have whilst adjudicating the debate. If Max would like to strike anyone from this list or add anyone to it, he should PM me before accepting and we can discuss it. I am open to changes. The debate is 4 rounds, with 10,000 characters per round, and 3 days to post.Full TopicOn balance, the U.S. approach to free speech is preferable to the European approach to free speech.TermsOn balance - generally-speaking; or, with both good and bad consideredApproach - a method of dealing with somethingPreferable - having greater desirabilityAbout the TopicThis debate is not about individual laws or rulings (though these may be cited), but rather it is about a holistic assessment of the way two major world players, both largely Western, approach free speech as a broad socio-legal concept. Debaters should draw thematic contrasts between the two models in order to distinguish which model, generally-speaking, is more desirable.For this debate, the U.S. model of free speech refers primarily to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well any currently valid precedent set by the Supreme Court around and about it and its application. The European approach to free speech primarily refers to Articles 10 and 11, Section 1, of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECvHR), and to relevant European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings around and about them and their application. European free speech will be confined to ECvHR member countries only. If debaters would like to talk about other legal structures regarding/grounding free speech, they can, and they may also debate the topicality of those other legal structures.Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speechs4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared; both debaters should affirm the desirability of their respective approaches10. Pro must accept in R1 and must not present arguments, rebuttals, or debate summary in R411. Rebuttals of new points raised in one's adversaries immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion (debaters may debate their appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and CrystallizationR4. Con generic Rebuttal and Crystallization; Pro waivesThanks......to Airmax for this debate; I have truly been looking forward to this debate for sometime, and I am eager to have an excellent and productive dialogue!