To me this shows the importance of the nation state and borders.
A nation can have free speech for its citizens but those who come in as visitors, migrants or for short term work may be subject to restrictions, with contravention leading to deportation. Such restrictions must be the concern of that nation alone. For example, to remain, a visitor may be required to show good behavior, the ability to fit in and pay their way. We have people here who do not speak our language but say the same things. Much of Europe likewise.
So, very good to see Italy showing some sense - enlightened self interest.

Great article! I cannot agree more with Lucky's statements. I lived in Italy for more than 30 years and at one time any tourist or possible immigrant stood out like a sore thumb. Italy was Italian and everyone else was a visitor. Now, since the instigation of the European Union, Italy had to start taking in large groups of immigrants seeking asylum in Europe. The surrounding wars have not helped. Italy's crime rate has shot through the ceiling with foreign perpetrators.
I have seen so many changes to a country that at one time had a problem of its own people emigrating to other countries. They do not have a social structure in place to absorb these extremes. The U.S. Is much better prepared to absorb other nationalities into its culture since it was born on this ideal.
I cannot accept that a Catholic Church cannot be built and operated in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc., but the Arabs demand to have a church in your country and every country allows this! I say if we cannot do the same, if we are not given the same courtesy then you have no right to do so in our country. I do not understand this premise of unbalanced diplomacy.

Isn't it embarrassing, not to say shameful,
that America lacks the spine that Italy has??

Love it. It just shows that our Big Government is on an Islamist bent and will never do anything to upset anybody. I mean even FDR imprisoned Japanese people when Pearl Harbor was attacked. I am not saying it was the right thing to do, I believe it was wrong. The main object is he did what was unpopular but what he felt he had to do at the time. I am sure at that time (it was before I was born) the national sentiment was behind the move. However when someone incites violence against an individual or group of people, then he or she is a danger to society. Sounds like some people who are currently in the news though but our elites will never put Jesse or Al in jail.

Hmmm. And I thought that Islam was "the religion of peace" and tolerance... [/sarcasm]

"This is how to show that it is unacceptable and that they are unafraid to stand up against this hateful nonsense. Our not so dear leader could learn a few things from this."
I thought he once said he was in favor of criminalizing hate speech and making crimes more severe (hate crimes) if they're motivated by hateful nonsense. I may be completely wrong on that though.

Politicians give lip-service to wanting to stop hate speech, but my understanding is the Supreme Court ruled in the past that hate speech is protected as long as it's not inciting a riot.

the French the british the Nordic countries and yes the good old usa should follow suit IMMEDIATELY.

the Italian mafia and the Jewish mafia collaborated.