>>>
>>>From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#United_States
>>>[...] it is true that in terms of purely political or religious speech, and freedom of the (printed) press, the U.S. experiences significantly less censorship than some other countries. For instance, a U.S. newspaper may freely express opinions which in other places might be criminalized as "hate speech," and organizations dedicated to such speech may freely march and speak in public (after having complied with all relevant content-neutral regulations). For these reasons, the Web services of most neo-nazis organizations, and most Holocaust deniers, etc. are hosted in the United States. This is a point of contention with some other countries and some groups, which point out that these organizations advocate policies that historically resulted in the deprivation of free speech and democratic rights, as well as the mass extermination of millions.
>>>
>>>A text that worries me has been made bold by me.
>>
>>Peter, don't get me wrong. I too detest these ideas and ideologies. How would it make sense to say those groups may not exercise freedom of expression because they were responsible for denying freedom of expression. Shall we make ourselves in their image and deny freedom of expression?
>>
>>There are laws about spreading outright lies about an identifiable group, and for the most part, those laws in Canada are enforced. That is why holocaust deniers are not tolerated well in Canada. We also have laws about liable and slander, but we have to make sure we do not cross the line of deeming ideas and opinions as 'lies' just so we can suppress them.
>
>Neonazis are militant and anti-democratic. Forbid them? YES! I'm glad they are largely denied freedom of expression in Europe. Why then not in the U.S.? (In my eyes, Holocaust deniers are a special breed of neonazis.) If you really think that denying them that right is a matter of making ourselves in their image, then our views really diverge here.

If I burn copies of Mein Kampf for it's ideologies, am I really better than those who burn Harry Potter for being anti-christian? Personally, I don't think so.

As I said before, I have no problem with suppressing the purveyance of lies. Holocaust deniers are spreading lies. Suppress those lies, yes. But make absolutely sure that when you suppress, you are not suppressing ideas simply because you disagree with them. I doubt I'm qualified or capable of doing that properly.

I would like an ideal world as much as the next person. I think they are nice ideas, but power corrupts and I'm afraid I'm currently stuck in the real world. So, the best way I can see to make certain that those who have been corrupted are kept at least somewhat in check, is to keep freedom of speech as one of our paramount concepts. As those who would steal our freedoms use their freedoms to express wrong or hateful ideas, so can I express the opposite. If I choose not to do so, then it's my fault if things go off the rails.

If Pat Roberston gains traction, it's because others have not done their duty in countering him. As Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

How will you debate to convince others of the the defects in those ideas if you drive them underground to silently infect the social fabric.