On 9/11/16 10:59 PM, Nadine Earnshaw wrote:

     "True free speech demands that you allow horrible small minded
     idiots the right to say vile things in public so that all unpopular
     but valid opinions can be debated and society can grow."
     No I don't agree with you. Sorry but you dont get to define what
     free speech is.

   It is already well defined and extremely well argued:
   [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
   [2]http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/a
   bout-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
   A reasonable history of free speech:
   [3]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news

   In 18c we arent talking about what is unpopular but what is public
   vilification. There is a difference between debate and personal
   attacks.
   Personal attacks whether physical or verbal are not acceptable and are
   criminal in civilized society.

   How would you know whether people have outgrown their prejudices if it
   is illegal for them to illustrate them?  You would rather that they
   stew and scheme (in the American meaning) in private?

   Free speech like guns can hurt when in the wrong hands, it is not
   something that hatefull fwits can hide behind.

   Some hurts should be confronted rather than outlawed.
   sdw

References

   1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
   2. http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
   3. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news