-- We don't ban whole works. Australia does.

Name some that have happened in the past couple of decades, given that this was your initial point of note. Then explain to me how those particular selected works are anything but a narrow gap between the US and Australia, in real terms rather than purity of ideology.

And need I remind you again about IP laws? Lifetime of author plus 70 years is a very real ban on associated works by other people. Something can enter the public mindspace and yet be forbidden for people to freely reimagine for around a century? Yeah, that's not a 'ban', because in principle, your grandchildren could publicly release your writings, right? US IP laws are particularly onerous and reduce the freedom of expression of people in other countries through treaty obligations, yet apparently the US principles of free speech remains clean as a whistle to you?

-- Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades > It's the principle of the thing.

So, Australia has the principle of being able to ban entire works and yet doesn't ban anything. This to you is insane totalitarianism. (conveniently you think that partial censorship is okay, it's just total bans that are so outrageously offensive)

On the other hand, states in the US have laws stating that you can't take office if you are an atheist. You state that this is fine and dandy, despite the inherent requirement for someone to challenge those laws to engage in a lengthy and costly court engagement, with plenty of social fallout. This to you is fine principle.

So, a 'bad' law seldom enforced = terrible, while a 'bad' law that can be overcome only through heavy investment of resources (ie: limited to the very wealthy) = awesomesauce. There is a world of difference between idealistic principle and how things work pragmatically.

-- If you abandon your principles the moment they're tested, they were never your fucking principles at all.

I didn't say anything about principles. I was talking about idealism being tested. These are not the same thing.

-- We don't ban face veils. Talk to me about racism when you've stopped banning veils.

You have a pretty tortured definition of racism, if it requires the banning of face veils before it's a problem.

How about the US's problem with 9% of black men currently being either in jail or on parole? Can we talk about that as a problem of racism, or is it off the cards because US muslims can wear face veils, unlike a couple of selected European countries?

And, once again, I'd like to point out that despite your lauding of how free speech is in the US, the US press is still less free than the Australian press - actual implementation of speech is curtailed in the US more than it is in Australia when it comes to the press. All your pontificating about one particular ideal means little in terms of how things are actually done pragmatically. I mean hell, in the US, despite your puritanical ideal of free speech, you have a whole selection of two political parties to vote for. What a range of expression available for your political voice! Here in Australia, there were so many parties available for the last federal election, that the ballot paper was over a meter long. Yeah, you're right, Australia has such a limited freedom of expression, because one book on euthanasia was banned in the past 20 years. That single point completely trumps all other freedoms a country has, and means that there is a vast gulf in comparison to the US.

Get over your puritanical idealism and have a look at how things are actually run - this is what affects peoples' lives, not the nominal principle they say they adhere to. There are plenty of avowed christians who behave in a very non-christian manner, for example. In real terms, there really isn't that much difference in free speech between the US and Australia.