Justice Ginsburg, we have no quarrel with the objective of harmonization fitting within the "promote the progress of science" understanding subject to constitutional limitations. If France adopted a rule that said you couldn't grant copyrights to hate speech, we could not harmonize with that rule consistent with our First Amendment and similarly, as Mary Beth Peters testified before Congress, ours is the only Constitution that has an express limitation on terms.
France has not adopted a rule that says you can't grant copyright to hate speech.
The text says "If France adopted a rule that said you couldn't grant copyrights to hate speech" meaning France has not adopted this rule. 
( z1 adopt :polarity - :ARG0 ( z2 country :name ( z3 name :op "France" ) ) :ARG1 ( z4 rule :ARG0-of ( z5 say :ARG1 ( z6 possible :polarity - :ARG1 ( z7 copyright :ARG0 ( z8 you ) :ARG1 ( z9 speak :ARG1 ( z10 hate ) ) ) ) ) ) )