Evil

[Minionman]

It's a wrong way to do.
Insulting,slandering or incitement to murder/racial hatred may do 'the victim' harm,which is against your principles of freedom;for instance,a racist group encourages murders against a category of people or  encourages a riot ;then there are several riots,resulting with the destruction of private goods and/or a few murders;now,who would be responsible for this situation? are they only responsible those who 'did' or those who 'did' plus those of the racist group who spread the word? In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.
There is a proverb of Confucius about the limits of freedom between you and me,which sums up what I think about it,but I don't remember ...
[right][snapback]60689[/snapback][/right]

Seems meant to get people riled up. I'll do the zarathustra thing and act like it isn't. There are good legal reasons not to go making these laws, they can be used as examples for other free speech limitations. The other post I made had the gag rule as an example of a type of speech limiting law. There were also a number of laws in states in the same time in some states that did a similar thing to abolition talk that these rascism laws would do, so that's a pretty bad example in the U.S. of speech limiting laws. There are good legal reasons for the rules. The different government beliefs are simply different so there's no point in arguing about them.