>>My exchange with Peter (and indirectly with Marcia) was under the context of 3 U.S. citizens.
No, you invented that context, just as you sought to impose a US legal definition of hate speech on a general discussion. Peter correctly replied that this is not the (US) legal forum, it's a chatter section. His view was
>if you want to speak in LEGAL terms, maybe. But this is the Chatter section not the Legal one :-)
>but always speaking ill of ones president says a lot.
>In some countries people get beheaded for it
The only US context appears to be certain people always having a go at satanobama. There was a time when only an Ayatollah would do that, but times change I guess. And yes, Peter obviously knows that you (we) are fortunate to live where you don't get your head cut off for trash talking a deity or head of state. But even in the US free speech does not trump all: try publishing a threat against satanobama and see what happens to you.
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
