Let's say that I think that all the "scientists" who testified that tobacco was not dangerous when they were privy to internal studies that concluded otherwise should be jailed. See where I'm going with this? But what has either to do with hate speech?
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action Brandenburg v. Ohio As I said earlier, declaration of intent to harm is not protected speech. Since then, the Supreme Court has sided with protecting speech in all cases - so long as it does not promote imminent violence.
See, I don't think that the church protesting military funerals and harassing grieving families should have those rights protected. There are other means of expressing their views. A law that can be trampled on is a law that needs changing. And as for your line in the sand, just because you (or I) can't personally draw it, does that mean no on should try to do so in the spirit of cooperation? What other lines can you personally not draw that should therefore be dismissed by everyone else?
You stated the below: "Yeah, I don't think the world is waiting for me to decide. I'm just saying, as you keep ignoring, that a line needs to be drawn. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? We live in a land of laws. This would just be another one." You are saying that a line needs to be drawn. What is the line in which you are advocating? How is a line drawn? Is it not through a new law? What crosses the line that you are advocating?
There ARE other means of expressing their views, and they are vile and despicable. But rights go to everyone, not just people who say things you don't like. Actually, I believe you or I could probably draw - and agree to - a line on this issue on what would be acceptable. The problem is that many others would not agree with our lines. And what makes our lines better than others? At the end of the day, people move on and only a government agency could enforce such a line. Government being the corruptible entity it is, that line would change over time and influence. Therein lies the problem.
That is a perfect example of the problem. So, if someone protest for something that is against your belief system, it should be illegal? If that is the case, I think all protest for climate change should be illegal.
He has no solution. He just doesn't like things as they are now. That's OK, by the way. No one can debate someone not liking something, as it is personal choice and a right to not like something. But without a solution to present, the whole discussion is worthless. Potential solutions can be debated. If you simply show up and say "this sucks", well then there's no real debate, is there.