Except of course the law doesn&#x27;t work that way for any other situation.<p>What, precisely, are &#x27;fighting words&#x27;? What, precisely, is &#x27;libel&#x27;? &#x27;Fair use&#x27;? &#x27;Porn&#x27; and &#x27;obscenity&#x27;? &#x27;Commercial speech&#x27;?<p>In this case, the thought police would refer you to the German law, summarized at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Germany" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...</a> .<p>This of course is protected free speech in the US. Though we need only look at Abrams v. United States, Schenck v. United States and Debs v. United States to see how the Supreme Court once interpreted the First Amendment.