SNIP
>
>Why always mention the worst cases?! At the time that I notice that the rules (laws and acts) are abused to (militantly!) gain power over opponents, I'll be the first to oppose!
>
>I think each real friend of the freedom of speech appreciates the existence of certain rules.

I think you are wrong, because you are arguing (though you don't say it above) that speech needs "the existence of certain rules".

The first rule for a successful democracy is that 'speech must have no rule which can curtail it (speech)'. After that first rule we can have any other rule that is agreeable to the people.

You seem to think that, under your scheme, the rules would be set according to YOUR ideas. That is highly unlikely. And one thing is certain, and that is that the rules would be added to over time. You say you would be the first to oppose such rules if they became "abused". But you might not be in a position to do so, because the rule you want to oppose might BE a rule that allows the authorities to silence you, even by jail.

It's a nice theory, Peter, but people craving power will go to any extreme to get power. That's why I brought up the "worst case scenarios". If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. No amount of goodwill by the throngs can stand in the way of a power-hungry person who has laws s/he can use to restrict speech. That is why NO law regarding speech is the only tolerable situation.