I’m not going to rehash that particular case since the larger point—and the point of Roger’s question—is, where are the limits? Are they ever appropriate?
Yes, limits are acceptable, and every country on earth thinks so.
Many people in the US think there can never be limits on free speech because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Those people are wrong. First, it only applies to government itself and some specific other situations, but, in general, is not applicable to a completely private situation on completely private property.
The other, bigger, restriction is that some speech is not permitted in the US at all. We all know the aphorism that one cannot shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre, and that gets to the fact that speech that presents a clear and present danger can be outlawed. It’s one thing to say that elected official A is a worthless person who should not be in office (permitted) versus elected official A is a worthless person who should not be allowed to live, so let’s go kill him (not permitted). Also, “obscene” words cannot be uttered on the airwaves, nor can a pastie-covered female nipple be shown on television. So, some expression is restricted in the US.
Other countries do things differently. New Zealand has free expression guaranteed in the Bill of Rights Act and throughout legislation passed over the decades. It is a cherished, closely held right that’s vigorously defended by the people and the courts.
Even so, judges can suppress all information about someone accused of a crime, forbidding the publication of any information about the defendant while the trial is in process. Judges can continue that suppression after conviction in some cases, such as when revealing the criminal’s identity might reveal the name of the victim of a sex crime. Even though some judges do this too much, we nevertheless respect the law and few of us attempt to get around it.
Also, offensive language can be criminal in some cases (like in the US). Unlike the US, however, extreme language denigrating people because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., can be prosecuted. The key word there is “extreme” because New Zealand is far more lenient toward hate speech than Canada is (I’m not saying that’s good or bad, it just is).
The most important point, however, is the one Americans like the least: Countries have the right to work out for themselves what works best for them. If Americans doesn’t approve, well, we simply don’t care. We wouldn’t tell Americans how to run their country, what gives them the right to tell us?
Seriously: Why do Americans assume their approach is automatically superior to all others?