There are a few points to make about each of these examples. I'll try to be brief.
Firstly, incitement to discrimination and/or violence based racial, sexual or religious hatred, is not free speech. I know US posters are familiar with the concept of shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Most modern western nations are theatres crowded with all stripes of humanity, some more flammable than others.
The CS Monitor article seems to castigate Europe for being inconsistent on free speech laws, as if Europe (or even just the EU) had some kind of federal mechanism to harmonize legislation across the continent. That showed a bit of ignorance, I thought.
In some senses many European nations have more liberal approaches to free speech than the US. The US is far, far more censorious of artistic representations of sexuality and the human body, for example. European artists, film-makers and musicians are less likely to have their work censored for mass consumption than their US counterparts. Free speech encompasses all aspects of human expression, political, religious and artistic. Different nations balance out these different, and occasionally conflicting, forms of expression in their own way. It's not a competition.
Your last link appears to contradict your argument. Nick Griffin was protected by data protection laws that allowed him to continue his political career on the far right despite having been convicted of holocaust denial. He was prosecuted a second time and acquitted. It seems to me that for someone who incites hatred, discrimination and violence so incessantly, he had his free speech more than adequately protected by the British judicial system.
