The law should say, you have the ability to say whatever you want and we will protect your right to do so. However, be aware that if your statement is scandelous of the beliefs or rights of others, that they may take action against you, in which case we protect their right to do so as long as their actions are lawful. No one would give two shits what anyone says were it not that accusations have any relation to truth (well ok, almost anyone that isn't still living in the 1st century AD). That is why gossip evolved as a powerful weapon, and Coke saying they are better tasting then Pepsi. Or that Global Warming and the acidification of the oceans isn't real. Or that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Or that the Earth is the center of the Universe. If you control opinion, you control human reality. And you control funding, etc etc. There is no solution to this except evolution and education are the only known systems that remove false bias. Laws are a limiting point until we get these ideal human beings.
Well, Justices in my experience are very logical people, and have studied history and the law deeply. It is not perfect, but they try hard to get it right. That is why the president choosing a chief justice is far more important than just about anything else to our every day lives. And besides, your argument is circular, because existing laws were put there by human beings in government. So they were "move the goal posts" when they were being put in place. That the Constitution can be amended is apriori acceptance that laws evolve. But it is certainly possible to de-evolve it as well.
"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." — Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
The obvious reason is that speech critical of government is a core First Amendment freedom. We should be suspicious, very suspicious, when government starts claiming the right to tell us what criticism of itself is or is not appropriate. This is true whether it is in the form of Sen. John McCain trying to outlaw negative campaign ads or Obama's IRS trying to silence conservative non-profits.
Nonsense. We can recognize that tradeoffs exist and that not every problem has to solved. Sometimes the price of freedom is a little messiness.
Exactly right. Hate speech would simply follow "hate crime laws". btw, has anyone asked Piezoe if he suffered a head injury and returned as Frederick Foresight?
Sheep vote the wolves for dinner. Look at pre-WW2 Germany. They were upright and moral, and decided to believe a lie. America is a soft-fascism. And most Americans are ok with that. We're well on our way.
...following unmitigated and unrelenting hate speech that finally incited enough people's base instincts to back a madman. The rest is history.