Unsuprisingly, you willfully misrepresent what I say. Let me make it clear for you.
a) We're discussing about hate speech in online communications based on the Meecham incident. We are
NOT discussing about racism/hate speech in general, or in private life ie what is said between mates, even though depending the context as I have shown they too can be prosecuted. While you have the right to be a racist in your private life, you cannot express your views in a broadcast, either television or social media, and not get fined/banned from use etc depending on the context of your communication. This is fact. The difference between the Carlin case and Meecham case was when the incident was broadcasted the former led to a legal action in the form of a fine against the network, the latter to a legal action in the form of a fine against the creator.
Suing companies and workers by the government for making racist comments is also a vey important indicator that you are dead wrong. Even Trump was
censured by Congress for racist tweets against the four congresswomen.
b) While social media has diluted the lines between what is said publicly and what is said privately, a general rule of thumb is that using the social media to express racist views will get you in trouble. All social platforms ban language that promote hate as you can see in the case of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. Posts in these platforms promoting racist commentary have also real-life reprecussions even in America, like
the sacking of Justine Sacco,
the firing of Rosseane Barr and
the firing of Jonathan Friedland from Netflix. If these cases were an encroachment on freedom of expression all of these cases would have been overturned; instead, they were all upheld. Why is that,
if what Ep1c says is true and racism isn't actionable in the US? If racism isn't actionable, then the act of firing these people is against anti-discrimination laws. But its not and they were fired. Period.
c) Harrassment by racial slurs through the internet is treated under harrassment laws and will get you a fine because it's a misdemeanor. There's one case where this doesn't happen which Aexodus correctly brought up, and that the case where the receiving party is part of the government in any capacity. The reason for this is that it's indistiguishable whether the hate directed was the outcome of someone's role as a government agent (protected from the 1A) or stemming from racial hatred (not protected by 1A).
c) In that sense, since the US doesn't have a unified system of laws codifying online hate speech, which is the concept of this discussion, cyberharrassment or hostile workplace environment or other provisions are usually used, depending on the context. The way this works I explained in full detail over a a few posts. It doesn't even matter if the hate was directed at someone in particular; if you express racist beliefs in America, you will loose your job and depending on your actions you can even be prosecuted for harrassment. This is fact. Period.
d) You can air your racist views in public only in the case you've secured a permit to hold a demonstration and you do it in a designated public space under a specific manner. Incitement to violence due to your speech may land you a prosecution if it can be established you presented a security threat to lawful and orderly conduct.
e) Your position on how freedom of expression works isn't new, or uninfluenced by propaganda. It's so prevalent a phenomenon in fact, that even the academic community is debunking it constantly.
The difference between EU and US legislation is on the basis of human rights, as I pointed out earlier on this thread. The EU recognizes the unalienable right for people to not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, skin color, religion or gender (thus recognizing the harm in racism, even in speech). The US incorporate hate speech under political speech which is generally protected by 1A, unless threats, harrassment or fighting words are uttered. This means that for the US legal system, all citizens are treated equally under the law and the same prerequisites are necessary between white and non-white groups to seek redress. While some are critical of this point and ask for its change due to the fact that packing provisions to seek redress when you're the victim of racism is a dishonest way to keep promoting racism, what it essentially means is that hate speech is broken down in its components like any insult thrown at a white person. And as a white person can seek redress and win the court case, so a non-white person can seek redress when insulted and win the case. Conclusion: You are not living in a racist paradise. Rejoice!