My philosophy is that "dangerous" ideas are usually better handled through exposure to open criticism and critical analysis than by suppression. Suppression leads to widespread disenfranchisement and extremist behavior (nothing enrages human beings more than unfair treatment). I'd honestly say that Germany would probably do better with the open approach too. But given their history, even though I don't approve of their censorship, I do understand.

Just like with buying a car or refrigerator in a free market of competing products, let the competition between conflicting ideas show which is better. It is telling that the "dangerous" ideas/philosophies are usually only able to grow to dominance in a system that already exercises suppression of speech & opinion. In a way, one can think of suppression of speech as weakening a culture's "immune system", making it more vulnerable to "infection" of harmful ideas in the future!