Hate speech has always been a violation of Facebook's ToS. The "deal" with Germany was simply that Facebook agreed to be better at actually enforcing their own terms.

You ignored the actual argument, that political policy was being falsely labeled as hate speech.

I have no idea if it's true or not, but that's what you need to address if you want to discuss the nature of the deal.

> I have no idea if it's true or not

Of course it's not, it's an absurd claim. There's a very clear distinction between political argument and, well, this:

http://www.dw.com/en/pegida-founder-lutz-bachmann-found-guil...

That article doesn't say anything about Facebook deleting posts of his. And the only thing he's specifically listed as doing, calling specific groups cattle/scum/trash, well, Facebook sure doesn't seem to delete similar language in general. "It's against the rules" does not imply that enforcement is fair if enforcement is highly biased and ignores 99% of cases.

It is in large part speculation and conjecture. The evidence I thought I had doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

All the same, if you don't support the right of horrble people to say horrible things, you don't actually support free speech.