Its good to see that there is some improvement in relations here, now lets get everyone else on board and engage in a civilized and constructive way that can produce something of value for the domaining community here and beyond.
Lets start with this question:
Are Free Speech and Human Rights in general Universal or not, and if not isn't it time in our social evolution for our cultures, religions, customs and traditions, and our laws to adjust to the Universality of Free Speech and Human Rights instead of the other way around.
I have had a few minutes over lunch to think through your serious question and here is my thoughts. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 assumed that Rights can be inherently general by status of being human. But then we know that even though, the majority of nations are signatories to the 1949 charter, the standards of what constitutes human rights varies across jurisdictions. Lets take a quick look at Article 1 of the US constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
freeexercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You see herein that the founders assumed those rights can be universal. You can see this too in the declaration of independence "
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" giving three examples of the unalienable rights to all humans by their creator, and which government should protect.
In the examples above, no conditional circumstances where given, to allow for the removal of those rights from a human being. And I guess that was achievable back then, in the world in which they lived. Now think about this for a second and ask yourself a few question and i am asking myself these;
1. If all peoples in the United States are endowed the above rights, why where there slavery (takes away the right to liberty and the persuit of happiness)
2. Why do we have prisons? (they take a way the right to liberty and the persuit of happiness)
3. Why do we take people to jail for inciting violence or inciting harm to others (Commonwealth v. Carter, in the text-suicide case which many believe its freedom of speech)
You will find the answer in the thinking that good law, is not written in stone, it evolves having been tested in the economy of practice; the real world. This is true when you think about situations where certain groups of gender identity have been disqualified from serving in the millitary (takes away their rights to the persuit of happiness) and landmark cases such as
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); the case of inciting actions that would harm others (e.g., “shouting fire
in a crowded theater.” or in this case Carter bluntly telling her boy friend to "Now Die".
Or in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); rejecting the right for students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
The last 2 being cases one would think violate the fist amendment and the universal human rights charter.
But then you realize that subsequent interpretations of laws, the law being of "hive-mind" (borrowing from a friend here) fuelled by precedent allows curtailing ALL freedoms including unalienable rights. The question should be whether such curtailing constitutes just law.
Providing a platform that enables hate speech (which is unregulated of its self), resulting in an act where the freedom of others are deprived or harm, suffering and injury of others is insured can be a legal liability.
I would argue too that places such 8chan, 4chan, dailystormer and that site
@frank-germany exposed with the Nazi stuff are acting on a thin and misconstrued notion of freedom of speech. It will become clear to them when a subscriber of theirs unfortunatley uses the platform to incite violence that leads to mass deaths and victims families suing them.
In conclusion, even though I long to live in a world where freedom and rights are universal, its an utopian ideal that is far down our evolutionary tree. For now, I prefer to think that good law, is JUST law. And just law is informed and evolves to meet the prevailing needs of society to encourage harmonious social order. I am sorry I am long winded. I wanted to give this some thoughtfulness. But don't be discouraged, Out of ashes, dust rises. There is no substitute to doing right. Right prevails atleast always.