Let’s be clear: the Trump administration is far from an archon of free speech majesty. President Donald Trump loves to engage in normally frivolous defamation lawsuits that are designed to deter critical media coverage. The president too often suggests that free speech only applies to speech he agrees with. Similarly, the White House’s suspension of public visitor records undermines transparent government. The suspension of the AP’s access to Oval Office briefings in retaliation for its refusal to identify the Gulf of America/Mexico as the Gulf of America is also problematic. It puts the president’s ego before the public interest in effective scrutiny of government.

Still, while it was disappointing Vance failed to strongly identify the key threats that China and Russia pose to transatlantic security, his face-to-face admonishment in relation to free speech deserves praise.

Referencing the Cold War, Vance pushed the assembled European leaders to “consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not. And thank God they lost the Cold War… unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it’s sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War’s winners.”

Historic context established, Vance then observed how “EU Commission commissars warned citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest: the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be ‘hateful content.’” Vance noted European bans on Koran burning. And singling out America’s “very dear friends” in the U.K., Vance recalled the story of Adam Smith Conner. An anti-abortion activist, Conner was prosecuted for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. Vance’s concerns take on direct U.S. policy concern in that the European Union is engaged in protectionist extortion against U.S. technology companies under the guise of protecting citizens against hurtful or hateful speech.

The crowd didn’t like what Vance had to say. European politicians and journalists like Americans to tell them they are cultured and a breath of elitist fresh air. And not that they are taking away the rights of their fellow citizens. Predictably, German defense minister Oscar Pistorius then gained Western media acclaim when he attacked Vance’s speech. Unfortunately for Pistorius, he accidentally made Vance’s point for him. As Pistorius put it, “[free speech ] does not mean that anyone can say anything.” As a side note, it’s worth asking whether Pistorius should even be at the Munich Security Conference, being that he continues to preside over a woefully inadequate defense budget.

Some commentators will point out how Vance failed to mention that Conner had been asked to move on from his prayer location, which was located inside an area that restricted religious protest activities. But I’d argue that this is the whole point as to why Vance’s concern is so urgent and valid. Should silent prayer constitute unlawful speech? Should burning a Koran lead to prosecution? Should making insulting, racist, or violent comments on social media lead to aggressive police investigations and multi-year prison terms? Indeed, should judges receive judicial guidance to impose tougher sentences on these offenses than those they impose on habitual child pornographers? Should people be made aware of Europe’s increasingly autocratic tendencies on speech as the international community gathers to consider regulations on artificial intelligence?

European leaders are now pushing for more restrictions on speech. Absurdly, they seem to think that telling angry citizens not to speak their minds will somehow cool the sources of that anger. The opposite is true. As Jefferson explained, “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error… Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves.”

Or consider the opinion of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2011 case of Snyder v Phelps. That case involved religious fanatics protesting with profanity near the funeral of a young Marine who had been killed in Iraq. Overturning an emotional distress lawsuit brought by the Marine’s family against the protesters, Roberts noted that “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

The First Amendment speech tradition explains why scandals are harder to conceal in America than they are in Europe, why the powerful cannot conceal their scandals or malfeasance with threats of defamation lawsuits, and why American society is more chaotic but also innovative and dynamic. Most importantly, the First Amendment explains why our individual sense of freedom is far stronger than that of our European friends.

Vance was right to deliver this uncomfortable message across the Atlantic.