Firstly I'll note (since you were directly responding to me) that I'm not one of those "folks in the U.S." as I'm all the way down here in OZ and not in any way American at all (from either continent). Secondly I'll note that I do rather prefer "freedom of speech" (scare quotes or not) to the alternative, not that we down here have any real constitutional protection of it (though I wish it were otherwise). And thirdly I'll note that in the post you were responding to I rather explicitly noted that no matter how deeply offended I might be I would not resort to violence, and wondered why those who would resort to violence should have the better end of the arguement.
Your response seems to be that they should, simply because they will be violent and I won't be. Hmmm... Is that really "right", for whatever perception of "right" you might have? You are quite correct that Canadian law seems to be tending in that direction and, whether you know it or not, so does Australian law (which rather explicitly follows Canadian precedent in some of these cases). But is that really a good idea? I think not, but perhaps I'm wrong. If I am I'd love to be told why.
...Mike
