>>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.
>
>Try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
>The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.
>
>There is also a text describing the situation in the U.S. and Canada.

I don't get your point here, Peter.
For example, if I worked in a government position with a top secret security clearance I would understand that I wilfully limited my freedom of speech in those areas related to the secret stuff I knew.
If I call someone a a-hole and they decide to take me to court they can make me pay some fine but they cannot put me in jail or cut off my tongue and hands to prevent me from further 'speech'. And I can turn right around and say it again and start the process all over again.
Finally, just because some countries may have some restrictions on free speech does not mean that it is a good thing that should be followed by all other countries.
You want the government to enact/enforce laws regarding certain kinds of "speech" that effectively prevent (not discourage, but prevent) me from being able to do so again. And you don't want this to be in regards to national security based on, for example, breaching secrecy, but you want to disguise words you dislike in the cloak of national security and "remedy" the person once and for all.

It wouldn't be long, Peter, before you or your relatives or friends would be "dealt with" too.