"1. Free speech > 2. A persons right to be free of hate speech > 3. A persons individual liberty"

Switch 2 and 3, and I agree. A person does not have the right to be free of hate. I have the right to hate you as much as you have the right to hate me.

"If you can't come up with a counterargument, everything you have said above is moot because of your lame straw man attempts."

I believe I've already posted that passage. One should absolutely have the right to incite hate against others. Democrats have been incessantly inciting hatred against President Trump and his supporters. Should they all be in jail?

"Who gets arrested, the guy who incited the act shouting "Get him!" or the people physically assaulting you and your demigod?"

Both. And Milo isn't my "demigod". He's a gay, and a gay will never be someone I look up to.

"Can you provide even one actual example of a policy from the 1860's thats similair?"

Democrats supported inequality then, and they continue to support it today.

My threads always generate so much excitement and discussion.

@leon, the question is:
Does the country exist so that we can have a 1st amendment or does the 1st amendment exist so that we can have a country?
That is, the 1st amendment is the means to have a free country. The ends is having a free country/democracy. It is not the other way around.
To the extent that 1st amendment is used to destabilize the country or to sow hatred, it can be and should be limited. In America, there are few limits because our country's fabric is not in danger. In Germany, the risk of fascism is much more real so they need to err on the side of limiting free speech.

Free speech is an inalienable right given not by nations but by nature itself. Free speech is an end in and of itself, and if someone uses that right to argue against democracy or even free speech itself, I support their right to do so.

Have God enforce natural law. I'll put my faith in man's ability to enforce elected man's law in support of the survival of the state.

The state exists to protect man's rights. A state that exists to destroy those rights does not deserve to exist at all.

Straw man. I want the state to allow as many rights as possible without destruction of the state. You prefer no state at all to one that infringes free speech in the slightest.

Well Leon, just try the "I've got a bomb" line in front of armed guards at a US Airport, or on an aeroplane belonging to a US Airline company in US airspace & see how that works out for you. Somehow I think even the current US Attorney General is going to come down on the side of "public safety" trump's ( ho ho ) your purported "right to unlimited free speech".

Wrong Leon ( yet again )
Nation States do not exist to protect "man's rights" & that is a clumsy & innacurate description. Nation States exist to protect the collective common interests of all citizens of that nation, and the territories of that nation. Or they should. But I can think of several Nation States that do not. Eg North Korea. I imagine that it could be suggested that the USA fails to properly protect the collective common interests of all it's citizens in the 21st century given it's huge dispossessed and alienated underclass. The modern day serfs of the USA.

Let's go serfing now, everybodies serfing now, serfing in the USA.

Nice job MM. :)

"Well Leon, just try the "I've got a bomb" line in front of armed guards at a US Airport, or on an aeroplane belonging to a US Airline company in US airspace & see how that works out for you."

I've addressed this time and time again. It seems you have reading comprehension problems. Saying that the holocaust didn't happen is political speech and expression and should therefore be protected. Saying you have a bomb (or that there is a fighter) has no purpose other than crude humor and causes meaningless harm. The two are entirely separate.

As for the purpose of nations, let me quote John Locke's Second Treatise.

Locke states as one of the key purposes of nations:
"There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases."

So the purpose of nations is to enforce the natural laws. So what are these natural laws?

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:"

Notice that one of these laws is the protection of liberties, the liberty to speak one's mind among them.

Locke was incredibly naive, though I am a fan of liberties.

I like the idea of kicking the shit out of hate speech via the marketplace of ideas.

@leon, if law is "allowed by common consent", it comes from the people, not from nature. In fact, Locke recognizes that "men...are not apt to allow of it [the law of nature] as a law binding to them".

Even if you understood Locke correctly as to the purpose of nations, the natural laws (as you quote them) can be in conflict with each other. Your right to incite hatred can have real implications for my health.

Every action anyone takes has an indirect implication on your health. Unless I call for your murder, anyone who tries to kill you cannot be linked to me.

If a teacher says that Trump is horrible, and a student decides to kill him, should that teacher be legally liable?

"If a teacher says that Trump is horrible, and a student decides to kill him, should that teacher be legally liable?"

Not according to Trump who is being sued for inciting violence against anti-Trump protestors at his campaign rallies. He claims his speech was misinterpreted.

Liabilty must be proven in a court of law. Thus it is 'unknown'.

Leon wants to kill hauta. I do to after that last 'stab'. I'll get him to in that other game. You know what I'm talkin about, don't ya punk! Do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?!!

* too (twice)

Clearly Natural Law allows for bodily integrity. You can do what you want with your own body.

Not what is 'unnatural'.

& who defines what is "unnatural" ?
"saying the Holocaust didn't happen is political speech and expression and should therefore be protected"
Firstly, the Holocaust did happen. That's a statement of FACT. Broadcasting lies and falsehoods might be an essential part of your "political expression" Leon, and that's your problem not ours.
I'm entirely unsympathetic to your ridiculous proposition. Unlimited freedoms are invariably a myth

Problem is, who gets to say what is fact? By your logic, Democrats would have the belief in creationism outlawed, and anyone who espouses it gets 10 years in jail.

^ unrealistic

God gets to say what is fact. Mere mortals get to interpret God's word. Right?

Who is this God person anyway?