I think before bannning "hate speech" it needs to have a clear definition. Everyone is of course entitled to express an opinion.

If you Ban Hate speeches you have to ban good speeches too

I am continualy amazed that, as Mr Schroeder states, this "simple, powerful statement" must be "interpreted", debated over and "redefined".

A speech never killed anyone.

In the wake of the Aurora and Oak Creek shootings perhaps the better discussion should be about the rights (i.e. to move freely, obtain weapons, etc.) of the mentally ill. These - I can't even call them men - had exhibited behavior that in hindsight should have been examined. Also, the local boy who killed his Grandfather with an ax......

Obviously, not a return to "One Flew Over..." or forced sterilization days but some better protection of the public at large. Words alone don't kill.

There should be laws in place to better protect the rights of people to have funerals of their loved ones, free from those Westboro freaks. Michigan has a law now that they are not allowed to protest within 500 feet of a funeral.

Yes, as hard as it is to swallow, "hate" speech should be protected... that's what America is about: free speech! My favorite quote came from a fictional president, Andy Shepard in the movie "The American President"... if only we had a President who really believed those things, our country would certainly not be where it is now... here's the quote:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." ~ President Andrew Shepard (Michael Douglass), The American President

Read more: http://www.finestquotes.com/movie_quotes/movie/The%20American%20President/page/0.htm#ixzz23Kxs1rqh

Patty, I have family in Kansas where (as you rightly say) "those Westboro freaks" are from... the local motorcycle clubs have come up with a solution (at least for now)... they block the funeral off from protesters... sometimes the "protectors" are told to leave, sometimes they're not (IMHO, they should be allowed to stay always), but they're sending a very strong message. I don't know if they do that up here, but if enough people stand up maybe the Westboro folks will realize they're not wanted and more importantly, not effective in their "message". Seeing protests at funerals of any kind infuriate me, especially protests at military funerals... that person protected those people's rights to spew that filth... some display of appreciation there, huh?? Grrr.

Words only have power when we GIVE them power.

Censorship of speech is wrong, hateful or not. Once we start limiting what can be said, we will lose far more than hate speech. China and North Korea are prime examples of "controlled" speech.

Yes hate speech, any kind of speech, should rightfully be protected. If we don't, then one day perhaps something YOU want to say would get you arrested. There are many examples in history of this. Once people allow a line in the sand to be drawn, it is a slippery slope that chips away at freedom until there is none left.

DON'T! tamper with the Constitution.

Hate speech should be protected not because its a good thing but it does identify people in the light of day to their identity. Furthermore, when you limit speech than you have an arbitration police who decides what can and can not be said. This control kills freedom for all of us to maintain any few. A good Example Is a anti gay marriage view as hate speech as so many on the left prescribe. It is also a christian belief from the church. Are christian's than Haters that must be silenced. Its all subjective and too degrees. The minute you add the thought police you kill freedom of ideas both good , bad , loving and hated.
It is better we are all free to say what we think than have others do the a lot more harm by deciding what is allowable, There is a benefit to hate speech. It is not that all things are acceptable in my mind but that what is seen in the light of day is much better known than hidden. I would ask is hidden hatred more dangerous than open hatred. Too most I think it is .

The problems we (USA society and certain other nations) are seeing/living through are are symtoms of a deeper root cause. The cause is stemming from the aggressive behavior which is so "well" presented by today's animation/movie and game creators. We (as a society) have been so exposed to the blood, guts, and abrasive discussions we see on TV/movies and printed literature that we are almost accepting (and even some embrace) such behavior as "cool."

Anyone speaking of love and caring and giving are pretty much discounted in honor of the aggressors and gun toting "heroes" on the theatres and on your home video games every day.

If we want to change the pattern of behavior (gun toting warrior types who create murder and mayhem), we need to take hold of what our children and grandchildren are viewing/playing and address these systemic causes of the "new norm" in day-to-day violence.

Problem - people such as myself are known as nerdy old geeks...we need young leaders in our schools and in our community who speak of kindness and love as character virtues to be emulated.....how to do this?

Start by supporting loving and caring people/advocates in our community. People with positive lifestyle examples. They are here....look around you and see them and support them and thank them....thinking here of our school system leaders and the many folks in benevolent work throughout our community.

For these leaders, we thank you...we do notice. :-)

Simply put, one man's hate speech is another man's Bible. It all depends on who is in charge.

Isn't hate speech what America's newspapers do every day, by only stating one point of view?

Mr. Pyter said it all "DON'T! tamper with the Constitution."

Failure to change and adapt has it's own destiny....failure and decline of all matters. Entropy will have it's own course if we fail to maintain our leadership at the helm.

There's a great quote, here...."where leaders of the people lack vision, the people shall perish."

At least one comment has been made to the statement of revisiting free speech and defining acceptable speech verses unacceptable speech and expression. This revisit is needed as technology advances each person's communication options. Social media provides current examples where law doesn't keep pace with technology. Using John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" as a guide to restricting free speech and free expression, some hate speech and expression has caused harm through people committing suicide. Now should the speech that resulted in the death of a shamed youth be tolerated under free speech, is an important question to be revisited and redefined. Is it the same as yelling fire in a crowed theater or not?

When you ban any type of speech all you're saying is that you're afraid of whatever it is that they have to say.

Freedom of speech is our right. However, one can be arrested for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct and other violations of law depending on word choice not only content. Americans swear frequently in public but woe to the person that uses profanity. Few really know the difference. We used to have a legal defense called "fighting words" I don't know if it's still in use. We have a right to belong to organizations of our choice. How many have problems with the Jehovah Witness doing what they consider spreading the word/service? How many have problem with the Boy Scouts refusing to allow gays? How many have problems with teens obtaining abortions without parental consent? It is when the actions become overt, when one attempts to force their beliefs on others that the law steps in and should. DON't TREAD ON ME.

Define "hate" speech. Who define "hate" speech?

Is hate speech by protesters in Madison accusing Walker of being Hitler or wishing/threatening harm to him and his family acceptable? Is one politician (male democrat) threatening another politician (female republican) acceptable? Is Rap music/videos threatening violence to women or white people acceptable? Are these examples acceptable and White-supremecy or the Westboro Church isn't?

Lyle already did a very competent blog and discussion on this issue a few days ago.

Why are we having this conversation again?

Yes, absolutely it should be protected. Everyone has the right to their opinion and thoughts and that should not even be tampered with. After all that is our first Admendment right to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I'm willing to bet the Darn NAACP has something to do with this one. They need to stop trying to control those of us who aren't of the African American race and leave us the _____ alone. I know this is just a pole but they are probably the reason we are having this poll in the first place. I can't stand that group, I think they are one of the most racist groups that should be abolished and I think the NAACP steps in and puts their nose into things where it don't belong. There I said my peace. I'm sick n tired of hearing complaining that has to do with White surpremecy groups when their are other groups like the one I mentioned in this post that need to be watched carefully as well. In fact I know this has nothing to do with the article other than the white groups being attacked but I have to mention this anyway, If we are going to go after hate things than lets go after some of the hate if not all that the Minority protection groups attack the rest of us on.

you can't slander others, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and speech that incites bodily harm or other violence is not protected by the 1st Amendment. in fact, your free speech rights are limited within very specific parameters, determined by 200 plus years of case law. hate speech that falls in these categories is not protected speech, and that's probably a good thing.

Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking — "thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak — by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on.

OH WOW, I CAN'T EVEN POST COMMENTS ANYMORE

Anyway, First of all, Mau, Thank you for standing up for me. I appreciate that. Um as for you Mr Ruble, um call me IGNORANT all you want. It is what it is and I tell things as I see it. You are very rude for what you said to me. I have the right to my comments and just like those of Madison the hard core Libs all they do is try to quiet the rest of us and control us. Well they will not prevail. The minute our Freedom of speech gets taken away is the day that our Country is no longer a FREE Country anymore.

Sadly this country will no longer ceases to exist this is due to the liberals that want to control free speech and continue to trample upon all our constitutional rights because that feel it is government knows best. I gurrentee you this if the liberals are runing this country we would become a third world county in which we are the laughing stock of the world. The NAACP is now the governments tool as supported by the liberal to silance people. Keep infringing on my rights will immigrate to Austrailia it is from there I will watch this country go up in flames

censorship at its best opposing comments get deleted down with the liberal agenda

thats what I thought this is what the liberals want because they are not responding rest of the country beware

Lyle, I think Mau is making the point that in regards to not protecting hate speech, certain words or phrases are removed form the vocabulary. Case in point...Neo nazis are protesting somewhere and the news crews are out gathering stuff for their stories at 10. Neo nazi calls one of the reporters, who is black, a N*****. They cannot even say that word on the news, refering to it as the "N'' word. We are not saying the word because it offends. It's gradual. That particular word was scratched from certain literary works, including mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. There is a character in the book named Nigger Jim and is refered to as that. The terminology was correct for the times but not now, and we know that. Southern colloquialisms aside, it was offensive in some eyes. however, we still see words like Kike, Polack, Wop, Dago and others used a lot in film and print. Another word going by the wayside more and more is Spic. Because of the importance of Hispanics in the political arena, that word is thankfully going away. Don't use the terms as hate but using them to describe an offense should not be treated as the same. I know, I ramble a lot but I hope you can see the point here.

...and if my white hip hop loving nephew says to me "Whassup Nigga" one more time imma gonna smack him.

Please define hate speech---What word exactly begins hate

Abraham Lincoln said: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." He was speaking of the curse of his day, human bondage/slavery. But this saying can also be applied to freedom of speech. If I deny or disallow you to speak, albeit what you say might be offensive , how do I react when you deny or disallow me to speak? An eye for an eye? Or do we turn the other cheek? Wars are started over "an eye for an eye". Peace is met by turning the other cheek.
I see much in the world that I find reprehensible, and I will not look the other way when someone is being hurt. But hatred in all forms (words and actions) needs to be put aside. Love, peace and tranquility are achieved by words and actions, too. Francis of Assisi said: "Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace . . ." We cannot be apathetic either to allow hatred and evil to take over. That is totally unacceptable. Positive words, and actions can undo evil and hate mongering. Let the haters have their say, as long as they say it with their tongues, and not with fists, clubs or guns. Freedom of speech is a precious freedom, as are all of the freedoms that the human spirit desire. This is a very imperfect nation, this nation was built on the blood and bones of the Native Peoples and on the backs of the African slaves, so we have a long, long way to go to achieve fellowship, equality and tranquility. But love and goodness still exist and can prevail if we all do our part to allow it.

What a ridiculous poll. Only under the Obama administration would such an irrational question be asked.
WHO determines what 'hate speech' is?

Unless they specifically threaten to kill someone or something like that, it should be protected. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just because theirs is different than yours, doesn't make it right or wrong.

What is this article's purpose, if not an attempt to chip away at the Bill of Rights?

@Lyle Ruble...thanks for the comment on my post. Sometimes it's hard to figure what's hate speech, what's not. I grew up in quite the racist family environment. I remember the marches by Fr. Groppi, I listened to Rev. King on the news. I got smacked for saying he was right. I am surprised I didn't grow to hate other races. Not to say I haven't made some errors in my language, but I think I pretty much remained a proponent of civil rights.

Gwen Moore would be behind bars if hate speech were illegal.

You can not be selective.
However, -
Blatant disruption of solemn events is one issue that gets a BIG NO from me,
Should respectful public advocacy, or not be allowed - Should be the real issue. <> YES from me!