Reply #58: I agree with a caveat

[florida08]

Who is deciding what speech incites violence. Where is the line? We've already had a gynocologist killed and a guard in the Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist. While the murderers may have been held accountable it doesn't change the fact they died because of hate speech incitement by others who hide behind the 1st Amendment.

I guess for me it's like Free Trade and Free Market strawman. Free to use fraud and outsourcing in the name of capitalism. On the surface they sound politically correct but underneath they allow corruption to run amok. While what happens in AZ may not affect us personally I'm sure a jewish person living there would have a different opinion.

A recent court decision says that those who wear unearned medals of valor are expressing free speech, contrary to the US Stolen Valor law that says it is punishable. Which is correct?

I could accept the 2 headed coin if both sides were being protected. But am not seeing it. The father that sued Phelps for disrupting his son's funeral won. But a federal appeals court reversed that decision ordering the father to pay all court costs.

Where is the justice? Yet the UK has banned them from the country. If were going to protect hate speech then we will live with the consquences of innocent people being abused and possibly killed. The fault is ours.

I thank you for your civility as well. I only try to give another point of view for discussion.