= new reply since forum marked as read
Hate speech is a deferred incitement to violence and should be limited more.
Hate the blacks, hate the Jews, hate the Kuffars, all this has consequences down the road.
Ted Cruz gets to decide who's guilty.
Yeah no 
Irony is quite frequently taken literaly. Disclaimers are advised whenever parallels are used.
In effect, a noticeable percentage of people in action not word lean toward restricted speech.
But in word here, free speech seems to be taken as untouchable, even vs hate speech.
I am just noting an amusing contradiction.
And it's not only played along Bernie/HRC lines. Other topics too.
Britain is about to change its laws to make it permissible to crack on islamist hate speech.
Rightly so, as islamists are trying to pit one community against another,
through violence if need be.
It is perfectly OK to say Christianity is nonsense. That's a view I incidentally share.
It's OK to criticize any ideology. The problem starts when you target a group.
If I say all {insert neme of group here} are {insert expletives here} and should be {insert form of violence here}, it's not OK.
The SCOTUS only gives a no-no to incitement to immediate violence. I disagree.
Incitement to deferred violence repeated over time is equally very dangerous. imho.
OK, you did target a group, but you did not incite violence.
Anyway, some right wing Christians are not whiny and entitled,
maybe.
That's kind of part and parcel of the definition of speech inciting lawless action.
And yes, yes, we get it, your sacred cow would never get gored on those horns.
And if you are referring to religion as my sacred cow, I have a herd of cows then.
European laws target hate speech, therefore deferred incitement.
One can't continuously spew hatred about one given group and not expect actual violence.
But don't be surprised when nobody gives a flip what you call it in the face of what everyone else does.
If you want european style hate speech laws in the US, then don't hide behind contrived definitions that sound similar to something that is already not protected speech.
e.g. Australia: - "The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
France: "Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. "
Denmark: "Any person who, publicly or with the intention of disseminating ... makes a statement ... threatening (trues), insulting (forhånes), or degrading (nedværdiges) a group of persons on account of their race, national or ethnic origin or belief shall be liable to a fine or to simple detention or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
Good luck trying to get such an amendment passed here.
Europe is going too far the other way, criminalizing criticism.
But hate speech is more than mere criticism, it's preaching violence.
It's not the same to say 'religion X is silly' (which is OK, but barely in Europe), and to say'(un)believers in Y should be subjugated/repressed/whatever'.
The fact you do not see the vast expanse between these two possible statements leaves only place for a discussion of blue elephants and potatoes, as you suggest.
There is a vast comfort zone between tyranny and anarchy.
Someome says something that maks someone else mad = "incitement!"
Now the "Getting Dressed" course (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/1112/3a.shtml) is much more useful for today's modern world. Who needs free speech when you can learn how powerful clothes can be?
