A Comparative Legal Analysis of Freedom of Expression: The Unique Jurisprudence of the U.S. First Amendment and Its Divergence from International Norms

I. Introduction: The Global Paradox of Free Speech

A. Executive Summary

This report provides a detailed comparative analysis of the legal frameworks governing freedom of expression in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France. The central finding is that, contrary to a widely held belief, no other nation has a legal framework for free expression that is truly comparable to the U.S. First Amendment. The American model, characterized by an exceptionally high bar for government-imposed speech restrictions, stands as a unique outlier in the landscape of liberal democracies. The report will demonstrate that the U.S. approach is a product of its distinct legal and historical tradition, one that has not been shaped by the trauma of modern totalitarian regimes. In contrast, major European and Canadian jurisdictions have consciously developed legal systems that balance the right to individual expression against other fundamental rights and societal interests, such as public order, human dignity, and historical memory. This core philosophical divergence—the American emphasis on an individual's right to speak freely versus the European and Canadian emphasis on duties, responsibilities, and the protection of vulnerable groups—leads to fundamentally different legal outcomes, particularly regarding the regulation of hate speech and historical revisionism.

B. Defining the Core Concepts

The concepts of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are cornerstones of democratic societies, yet their legal application varies profoundly across jurisdictions. In international human rights law, as enshrined in instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), freedom of expression includes the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers".¹ However, this right is not absolute and may be subject to certain restrictions when necessary to protect public interests or the rights of others.² This report will use these foundational principles to analyze how different legal systems implement and interpret this right, revealing a spectrum of approaches rather than a single, universal model. The comparison will focus on the extent to which each country tolerates speech that is widely considered offensive, hateful, or harmful, as this is the primary area of divergence.

II. The American Model: A High-Bar Jurisprudence for Speech Restriction

A. The First Amendment: Text and Foundational Principles

The legal basis for freedom of expression in the United States is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".³ This provision is rooted in a legal philosophy that views robust public discourse as essential for self-governance. Proponents of this view, often called "free speech absolutists," argue that a nation can only be autonomous if its people can freely express themselves on matters of self-governance without government interference.⁴ This philosophy is also intertwined with the "marketplace of ideas" theory, which posits that truth will ultimately emerge from a free and unfettered competition of ideas in public discourse.⁴ While some jurists, such as Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas, have advocated for a literal interpretation of the First Amendment's "no law" clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has never adopted a purely absolutist approach.⁵ The Court has, over time, carved out a limited number of narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection, but its jurisprudence remains an outlier for its expansive protection of expression. This tension between a philosophical ideal and judicial pragmatism is a defining feature of American free speech law, resulting in a system where the vast majority of speech, even that which is highly offensive, is protected from government censorship.

B. The Doctrine of Unprotected and Lesser-Protected Speech

The U.S. legal system's commitment to protecting even the most objectionable speech is demonstrated by its extremely high standards for restricting it. Speech is only considered "unprotected" if it falls into one of a few, narrowly defined categories.⁶ A primary example is the legal test for incitement to imminent lawless action. Established in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, this test holds that a state may only forbid speech advocating the use of force or illegal conduct if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "is likely to incite or produce such action".³ The high threshold of this two-pronged test is illustrated in subsequent cases. In Hess v. Indiana, the Supreme Court found a protester's profane remark, "We'll take the fucking street later," to be protected speech because it was not advocacy of "imminent" lawless action.⁷ Similarly, in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the Court protected a civil rights leader's rhetoric threatening violence against those who refused to boycott, stating that "strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases".⁷ Other unprotected categories are also defined with similar specificity. True threats are statements that communicate a "serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group".³ The speaker does not need to intend to carry out the threat, but must have the intent of "placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death".³ The doctrine of fighting words is also narrowly tailored to cover only those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury and tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace".³ A direct consequence of this legal framework is the substantial protection afforded to hate speech in the United States. The First Amendment does not contain a general exception for hate speech.⁶ The government's role is not to "shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive".³ Instead, the system prioritizes the expression of unpopular and countervailing opinions to encourage robust public debate.³

C. Case Study: The High Bar for Hateful Expression

The American legal system’s tolerance for offensive speech is powerfully demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps. In this case, the family of a deceased Marine sued members of the Westboro Baptist Church for intentional infliction of emotional distress after the church picketed his funeral with signs saying, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops".⁹ Despite a jury awarding the family millions of dollars in damages, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the church's speech because it was on a matter of "public concern" and took place in a public area.¹⁰ The Court’s reasoning hinged on the principle that speech cannot be restricted simply because it is "upsetting or arouses contempt." The opinion stated that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable".¹⁰ The Court concluded that to punish speech for being "outrageous" would introduce an "inherent subjectiveness" that could turn a jury into an instrument for the suppression of "unpleasant expression".¹⁰ This case serves as a poignant illustration of the American legal system’s profound commitment to protecting even the most hurtful and repugnant forms of expression. Table 1: The Spectrum of U.S. Speech Protection

Category of Speech Legal Test & Standard Landmark Case Example Fully Protected Speech No restriction based on content; government action subject to strict scrutiny. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 11 Hate Speech Substantially protected unless it falls into one of the narrow exceptions for unprotected speech. Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 9 Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Must be "directed to" and "likely to" produce "imminent" illegal action. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 7 True Threats Communication of a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence. United States v. Dinwiddie (1996) 3 Fighting Words Words that "by their very utterance inflict injury" and are a "direct personal insult." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 6 Defamation Unprotected if it is a false statement of fact made with a "sufficiently culpable mental state".⁶ For public figures, "actual malice" must be proven.¹¹ New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 11 Commercial Speech Receives "diminished protection" but is not a complete exception.⁶ False or misleading advertising can be prohibited.

III. The European and Canadian Models: The Balancing Act of Rights

In stark contrast to the U.S. approach, most other liberal democracies have developed legal frameworks that explicitly recognize that the right to free expression is not absolute and must be balanced against other rights and societal goals.

A. The United Kingdom: The European Framework and Collective Responsibility

The legal basis for freedom of expression in the UK is found in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).¹² This provision explicitly states that while everyone has the right to freedom of expression, its exercise "carries with it duties and responsibilities" and may be subject to restrictions "as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society".¹² This is a fundamental philosophical departure from the U.S. model, which places the burden on the state to justify restrictions rather than on the individual to assume responsibilities. The UK's legal system, informed by this framework, criminalizes certain types of speech that would be protected in the U.S. For instance, the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offense to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress".¹⁴ This law also includes language that incites "racial and religious hatred".¹⁴ This legal threshold—simply causing "distress" with "insulting" words—is significantly lower than the U.S. standard of "imminent lawless action" and demonstrates a greater legal emphasis on protecting public order and the rights of others. This is a critical divergence from the U.S. philosophy of protecting speech even when it is "offensive, immoral or hateful".³ This legal approach has led to prosecutions for online "hate" that would not be possible under the U.S. First Amendment. For example, individuals have been sentenced to prison for "racially aggravated malicious communications" and for "sending by public communication an offensive message".¹⁶ The case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) further illustrates this. He has faced convictions not for the content of his speech itself, but for violating court orders that prohibit actions that could prejudice a trial, which is an application of a legal principle that is largely absent from the American free speech debate.¹⁷

B. Canada: Balancing Rights with "Demonstrably Justified" Limits

Canada's approach to freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, offers another example of a legal system that consciously balances competing rights. Section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression".¹⁹ The Canadian Supreme Court has broadly interpreted this to protect "any activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning," including hate speech and even some forms of child pornography.¹⁹ This principle of content neutrality aligns, at this initial stage, with the U.S. approach.¹⁹ However, the key distinction is found in Section 1 of the Charter, which provides that all guaranteed rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".²⁰ This clause creates a legal mechanism for balancing individual rights against collective societal interests. The Supreme Court of Canada has developed a multi-part proportionality test, known as the Oakes test, to determine if a limitation is justified.²¹ This framework was tested in the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra, in which a high school teacher was convicted for knowingly promoting anti-Semitic views to his students, including Holocaust denial.²² The Supreme Court ruled that while the law prohibiting the willful promotion of hatred infringed on freedom of expression under Section 2(b), the limitation was justified under Section 1.²⁴ The Court found that the government's objective of preventing the harm of hate propaganda—specifically, to protect the dignity of targeted groups and foster harmonious social relations in a multicultural society—was a "pressing and substantial objective".²¹ The Court concluded that the law's benefits outweighed its deleterious effects.²² This judicial balancing act, where a societal objective can override an individual's constitutional right, is a core principle that is fundamentally different from American jurisprudence. A similar conclusion was reached in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a law prohibiting hate speech that exposed a group to "hatred".²⁶

C. Germany: The Legal Architecture of a "Militant Democracy"

Germany's legal approach to freedom of expression is the most stark contrast to the U.S. model, a direct consequence of its history with Nazism. The country operates as a "militant democracy" that empowers the state to defend itself against those who would subvert its democratic order.²⁸ While the Basic Law (Germany's constitution) guarantees the right to "freely express and disseminate his opinions" in Article 5, it explicitly states that these rights "shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws" and in the "right to personal honour".²⁹ The central legal instrument for this is the Volksverhetzung law (§ 130 of the Criminal Code), which criminalizes inciting hatred against national, racial, religious, or ethnic groups.²⁸ This law has been explicitly amended and expanded over time to directly address the threats posed by neo-Nazism. It not only bans incitement to hatred but also explicitly criminalizes Holocaust denial and the public display of Nazi symbols and propaganda.²⁸ The legal philosophy underlying this law is a radical departure from the U.S. marketplace of ideas. Germany's system prioritizes the protection of human dignity over the unfettered expression of hatred. Denying the Holocaust is not treated as a matter of opinion or historical research but as a crime that "undermines the sense of post-1945 Germany".²⁸ This approach views certain historical facts as non-negotiable and outside the realm of legitimate debate.³⁴ This framework's reach extends even to content created and disseminated abroad if it is accessible within Germany. For example, the Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel was convicted in a German court for propaganda he published from the U.S. and Canada.³¹

D. France: Republicanism, Secularism, and the Law of Responsibility

France's legal tradition also differs significantly from the U.S., with a system that balances freedom of expression with the principles of republicanism and the law of responsibility. The country’s foundational text, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, articulates this balance, stating in Article 11 that citizens "may speak, write, print freely, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law".³⁵ French law has a specific history of combating racism and historical negationism, which is exemplified by the Gayssot Act of 1990. This law, distinct from a French law on transport debt also known as the Gayssot Act 36, makes it an offense to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined by the London Charter of 1945, under which Nazi leaders were convicted.³⁸ The legal principle behind this law is that Holocaust denial is not a form of protected speech but an "abuse of rights" that assaults the fundamental values of the republic. This legal perspective was affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Garaudy v. France.⁴⁰ The Court declared a writer’s application inadmissible after he was fined for Holocaust denial, stating that his book was not "historical research" but rather an attempt to "rehabilitate the Nazi regime" and accuse Holocaust victims of falsifying history.⁴⁰ By relying on the "non-destruction clause" (Article 17 of the ECHR), the court ruled that such speech falls outside the scope of freedom of expression altogether, thereby bypassing a difficult balancing test.⁴⁰ Furthermore, French law extends legal responsibility beyond the original speaker. In Sanchez v. France, the ECtHR upheld the conviction of a politician who failed to promptly remove third-party hate comments from his Facebook page, assigning him a degree of shared liability as the administrator of the page.⁴¹

IV. Comparative Analysis: Divergent Philosophies and Legal Outcomes

A. The Philosophical Chasm

The most fundamental difference between the American model and its European and Canadian counterparts is a philosophical one. The U.S. system is largely predicated on the marketplace of ideas, a theory that relies on the belief that "truth" will emerge from a free exchange of views.⁴ This approach grants a high degree of protection to speech, even if it is offensive or harmful, on the assumption that the best way to combat bad ideas is with good ideas, not with suppression. In contrast, the European and Canadian systems operate on a principle of duties and responsibilities. They view freedom of expression not as an absolute right but as one that must be exercised with consideration for its impact on others and on society as a whole.¹² These legal frameworks are designed to protect not just the individual speaker, but also the collective body politic from the corrosive effects of hate speech and historical revisionism. They recognize that in some cases, certain forms of expression are so harmful that they undermine the very foundations of a free and democratic society, and therefore must be curtailed.

B. A Head-to-Head Comparison of Legal Tests

This philosophical chasm leads to profoundly different legal tests and outcomes. The U.S. relies on the Brandenburg test 7, which sets an extremely high bar for incitement, requiring that the speech be directed toward "imminent lawless action" and be "likely to incite" it.⁷ This standard ensures that pure advocacy, no matter how abhorrent, is protected.⁸ European and Canadian law, however, does not require a link to imminent violence. Instead, laws are often triggered by the content of the speech itself and its potential to cause harm, offense, or to incite hatred. For instance, the UK's Public Order Act criminalizes speech that is merely "insulting" or "abusive" and causes "distress".¹⁴ Similarly, Germany's Volksverhetzung law and Canada's hate speech laws are predicated on the content of the expression and its tendency to incite hatred against protected groups, not on the immediacy of a violent response.³¹

C. The Impact of History on Law

The primary explanation for these divergent legal philosophies is the impact of history. The U.S. legal system evolved in a context that, while certainly not free of internal strife, lacked the defining experience of a modern totalitarian state that used propaganda to orchestrate mass violence.²⁸ Consequently, American free speech jurisprudence has been shaped by a fear of government censorship and a faith in open debate.²⁸ By contrast, the legal frameworks in Germany, France, and other European nations were built from the ashes of World War II and the Holocaust.²⁸ These countries witnessed firsthand how hateful rhetoric and historical lies could be used to dehumanize and ultimately murder millions of people. As a result, their legal systems were designed with the specific purpose of preventing such an event from ever recurring. This is most evident in the criminalization of Holocaust denial, which is viewed not as a debatable opinion but as a dangerous assault on historical truth and human dignity.³⁴ The Canadian model, while not born of the same direct trauma, also consciously chose to balance free expression with the needs of its multicultural society, a societal objective that is not legally recognized as a countervailing force in the U.S. system.²² Table 2: Comparative Legal Frameworks for Freedom of Expression

Feature United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Legal Basis First Amendment ECHR Article 10 Charter Sections 2 & 1 Basic Law Article 5 Declaration of the Rights of Man Core Philosophy Marketplace of Ideas; protection against government censorship.³ Duties and responsibilities; protection of public safety and order.¹² Balancing of rights; reasonable limits on expression are justifiable.²⁰ Militant Democracy; protection of human dignity and democratic order.²⁸ Law of Responsibility; prevention of abuse of freedom.³⁵ Treatment of Hate Speech Substantially protected; not a general exception.³ Criminalized under Public Order Act if it causes distress, harassment, or alarm.¹⁴ Criminalized if it wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group.²⁵ Criminalized under Volksverhetzung (§ 130) for inciting hatred or assaulting human dignity.³¹ Criminalized for inciting discrimination, hatred, or violence.⁴⁷ Treatment of Holocaust Denial Protected as historical opinion unless it meets the Brandenburg test for incitement.³ Not explicitly criminalized as a standalone offense, but can be prosecuted under broader hate speech laws.¹⁴ Protected expression, but criminalized if it is a willful promotion of hatred.²² Criminalized as a specific offense under Volksverhetzung (§ 130).²⁸ Criminalized under the Gayssot Act for questioning crimes against humanity.³⁸ Defamation Burden of Proof Plaintiff must prove the statement was false.⁵⁰ Defendant must prove the statement was true.⁵⁰ Falls under lesser-protected speech; civil liability possible.⁶ Criminalized for malicious gossip or defamation; ban on "defiling the memory of the dead" used to try deniers.²⁸ Civil and criminal liability for abuse of freedom.³⁵

V. Conclusion and Outlook

A. Synthesis of Findings

The report concludes that no country truly mirrors the U.S. model of freedom of expression. The American legal framework is exceptional for its high level of protection for speech, including hate speech, which is a direct consequence of a historical preference for unfettered expression over government intervention. In contrast, the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France represent a shared, more balanced approach. Their jurisprudence is a product of their unique histories and societal values, prioritizing the protection of collective rights, social harmony, and the dignity of vulnerable groups. They have implemented legal mechanisms to restrict speech that is deemed inherently harmful, a concept that is largely absent from U.S. law. The criminalization of hate speech and Holocaust denial in these nations is not an overreach of state power but a deliberate legal choice to prevent the re-emergence of ideologies that have historically led to societal collapse and atrocity.

B. Implications and Future Challenges

The fundamental differences in these legal philosophies are now playing out on a global scale in the digital age. The U.S. model, with its reliance on private social media companies to self-regulate content, clashes directly with the European approach, which legally mandates the removal of hateful content and requires platforms to report users to law enforcement.⁴⁴ This is a major challenge for a globalized world where cross-border hate speech and disinformation threaten to undermine the democratic institutions that free expression is supposed to serve. The American "marketplace of ideas," which assumes that a vibrant exchange of ideas will naturally lead to truth, is facing unprecedented challenges from the speed and reach of online communication.

C. Final Recommendation

Understanding freedom of expression in an international context requires a rejection of the U.S. model as a universal standard. The evidence demonstrates that the U.S. approach is not a sign of "superior" freedom but rather a unique reflection of its specific historical trajectory and legal tradition. Policy makers, legal scholars, and journalists must appreciate that the right to expression is not absolute and that a "free and democratic society," as defined by many nations, can and does impose limitations on speech where it is deemed necessary to protect other fundamental human rights and foster social cohesion. 참고 자료 www.ohchr.org, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,-1.&text=Everyone%20shall%20have%20the%20right,3. The Right to Freedom of Expression Under International Law | eReader - Media Defence, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.mediadefence.org/ereader/publications/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online/module-1-key-principles-of-international-law-and-freedom-of-expression/the-right-to-freedom-of-expression-under-international-law/ Frequently Asked Questions - Free Speech - Iowa State University, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://freespeech.iastate.edu/faq What is free speech absolutism? | liberties.eu | liberties.eu, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/44213 First Amendment absolutism | Research Starters - EBSCO, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/first-amendment-absolutism United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions Brandenburg test | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test Brandenburg v. Ohio | 395 U.S. 444 (1969) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ Snyder v. Phelps | Oyez, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-751 SNYDER v. PHELPS - Legal Information Institute, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html Supreme Court Landmarks - United States Courts, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10 - Legislation.gov.uk, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9 European Convention on Human Rights - Article 10, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-human-rights-article-10 Free Speech in the UK: what does the law actually say? - CARE, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://care.org.uk/cause/freedom-of-speech/free-speech-law Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights Online Hate and Free Speech - Stop Hate UK, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.stophateuk.org/about-hate-crime/what-is-online-hate-crime/online-hate-and-free-speech/ Tommy Robinson: From apprentice aircraft engineer to right-wing ..., 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-arrest-protest-police-court-b2825948.html Tommy Robinson - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression - Department of Justice Canada, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html Charterpedia - Section 1 – Reasonable limits - Department of Justice Canada, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html Section 1 of the Charter & the Oakes Test - Ontario Justice Education Network, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://ojen.ca/wp-content/uploads/In-Brief_STUDENT_Section-1-and-Oakes_0.pdf R. v. Keegstra - SCC Cases, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.do Canadian Hate Laws | EBSCO Research Starters, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/canadian-hate-laws R. v. Keegstra - Global Freedom of Expression, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/r-v-keegstra/ R. v. Keegstra (1990) - LEAF - Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.leaf.ca/case_summary/r-v-keegstra-1990/ Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott (2013): Anti-Gay Flyers Violate Hate Speech Prohibitions - Centre for Constitutional Studies, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2013/06/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott-2013-anti-gay-flyers-violate-hate-speech-prohibitions/?print=print Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott - Global Freedom of Expression, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott/ Germany's Laws on Antisemitic Hate Speech and Holocaust Denial, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/ Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/basic-law-federal-republic-germany-10 Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/basic-law-federal-republic-germany-8 Volksverhetzung - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung Legality of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial Freedom of expression, Germany, law, J. D. Vance - deutschland.de, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/freedom-of-expression-germany-law-j-d-vance Holocaust denial in criminal law | European Parliament, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/698043/EPRS_BRI(2021)698043_EN.pdf Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen La loi Gayssot et le recouvrement de créances transport, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.allianz-trade.fr/blog/loi-gayssot-recouvrement-creances-transport.html Que dit exactement la loi Gayssot sur le recouvrement de créances transport - Hoopiz, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.hoopiz.fr/que-dit-exactement-la-loi-gayssot-sur-le-recouvrement-de-creances-transport/ Gayssot Act - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act Holocaust Denial: Key Dates, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/holocaust-denial-key-dates Garaudy v. France - Global ... - Global Freedom of Expression, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/garaudy-v-france/ Sanchez v. France (GC) - Global Freedom of Expression, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/sanchez-v-france-gc/ en.wikipedia.org, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20Criminal%20Justice%20and%20Public,or%20insulting%20words%20or%20behaviour. Criminal Code ( RSC , 1985, c. C-46), 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html Hate speech: Comparing the US and EU approaches - European Parliament, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/772890/EPRS_BRI(2025)772890_EN.pdf Freedom of Expression - Centre for Constitutional Studies, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/freedom-of-expression/ German Hate Speech Laws: Balancing Freedom of Expression and the Fight Against the Incitement of Hatred by Catherine Forristal [Page - Issuu, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://issuu.com/theeaglegazette/docs/eagle-vol8-issue1-final/s/13730278 en.wikipedia.org, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France#::text=Article%2024%20prohibits%20anyone%20from,or%20for%20having%20a%20handicap. Hate speech laws in France - Wikipedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France Legality of Holocaust denial in Germany - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial_in_Germany www.milnerslaw.co.uk, 9월 18, 2025에 액세스, https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/5-differences-between-us-and-uk-laws/#::text=In%20the%20USA%2C%20the%20burden,prove%20that%20it%20was%20true.