U.S. Free Speech vs. EU Free Speech

I am sure it will be an interesting experience for each of us, and I hope it will be similarly interesting for anyone reading it. This debate is the result of several conversations Bsh1 and I have had in google + hangouts that broadly touch on the subject of freedom of speech. Throughout these discussions, it become clear to us that, while our views may not be vastly different, there is enough divergence in our opinions that could make for an interesting debate. The challenge of taking on a subject like this, with an opponent like Bsh1, concerns me for two major reasons. The first challenge being that the concept of freedom of speech is complex (in terms of properly defining these things, and understanding the scope of what is actually being discussed here), but ultimately very simple. For myself, and ideally, the culture in which I live, the value of liberty, and therefore by extension freedom of speech, is self evident and inherent. This means that for me, part of the challenge of taking the position that I am, is to very succinctly make the case for something that I believe is not just "truth", but so thoroughly ingrained culturally and personally, that it wouldn't be dissimilar to me trying to prove something like the health benefits of drinking water. In other words, it's so obvious to me that I realize I've become so complacent with the truth of my position, that I haven't considered critical thinking on the topic necessary for some time. As an extension of that, the second challenge is that I respect Bsh1 as an intelligent person and an excellent debater. I know that even if he were taking a position that I believe is nearly impossible to support, which is what I believe he is doing here, that he would still be capable putting up a good challenge to the extent that he could very well win. So it is with that in mind that I cautiously take on this debate, and respectfully wish Bsh1 good luck. So with that said, let's move on to making my case. I went through several different drafts of this of various lengths, waxing poetically about the importance of freedom of speech, and each time that I read it, I felt that a lot of it was redundant and unnecessary. So ultimately, I believe that my case can be stated in the following sentence. The risks to society for sanctioning speech, outweigh any benefit they might have. The above statement assumes several things that I believe are out of the scope of this debate (there are naturally restrictions in the US, but those are the rare exception), so with that in mind, I believe this statement is consistent with western beliefs and values, and is also in direct conflict with my opponent's position. To expand, I accept that there are risks to freedom of speech, some of which my opponent will have articulate, but ultimately, those risks are worth the benefits in all cases. I believe that there is nothing worth silencing speech for. In other words, acquiescing to those that are offended by such speech, harms society to a greater extent than dealing with the consequences or risks of that offense. I do not believe there is a single example one can give where this isn't the case in either the US or Europe. Since we've already excluded the non-applicable examples, I can confidently say therefore that there is no speech too damaging to society to allow, and no speech too dangerous for society to restrict. To the contrary, speech perceived to be the most dangerous, is often speech that is the most necessary, and restricting that speech is therefore inherently and directly damaging to that society. Any society that is restricting freedom of speech for, what I believe will become the crux of this debate, avoiding offending groups of people through what is defined as "hate speech", is in fact acquiescing to fascism. This is not in some type of down-the-road theoretical way, but in a very direct way that concedes liberty out of fear, with immediate consequences. To summarize, freedom of speech is entirely necessary in modern liberal societies. It is impossible to separate an ideal democracy, with the greatest allowance of speech possible, and any restrictions on freedom of speech, restrict freedom, liberty, justice, and democracy at every point of restriction. Sanctioning speech for anyone is therefore sanctioning freedom for everyone. The risks of freedom of speech is a low price to pay for the inseparable value it provides to free societies. We can always come up with excuses to restrict speech, but it will always be reactionary, or out of fear, and always ultimately lead to far worse consequences. I hope to provide clear reasoning and examples for the above throughout this debate, and finally to show that European "hate speech" laws covered under the laws my opponent has cited for support, are arbitrarily applied, and aren't merely a slippery slope to tyranny, but show that Europe has already ceded to fascism, even if it has the best intentions. Freedom of speech isn't just necessary, it's intrinsically inseparable from freedom, liberty and justice. Any watering down of this fundamental aspect, breaks the very foundations upon which freedom and liberty are built upon.