In your country you have the "fighting words doctrine" and the "imminent threat test" aka "clear and present danger test". These are established through jurisprudence and it limits your socalled free speech. Do not delude yourself that your free speech isn't limited as well.

The "fighting words" doctrine has been circumscribed, and come into disrepute as the "heckler's veto." And yes, our defamation laws coexist in tension with free speech. Inciting a riot is still an area of difficult speech law -- but no mere words in a newsletter attacking a group would trigger a "clear and present danger" exception to free speech -- that applies to public gatherings and admonitions that incite the crowd. But we have very harsh requirements to prevail in a libel or slander suit, and do not AT ALL entertain notions of "group libel" as some European countries long have. Public figures can find it almost impossible to prevail in a defamation suit, because the free speech bar is set so high.

But what we do not do, is punish political opinions. I can call Group X any vile and awful thing I like, whether it is true, false, or something in-between. And again, in Canada, the so-inclined prosecutor could fine and shut down any number of American web sites, from Jesus' General, to Sadly, No!. They are very disrespectful and "hateful" about certain kinds of Xians and neocon Jews.

But what happens when the inflammatory speech is deemed to be directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action? And by whom is that decided? The government? And when is that decided? After an investigation? By the government?

The government via the judicial branch decides. It is the best solutions humans have yet devised -- an independent (yes, I know all the caveats) judiciary makes the call. On the whole, at least here in the U.S., they have usually either decided correctly, or eventually overturned bad prior decisions.

But that difficulty is one hell of a far cry from a law that per se criminalizes or sanctions saying "hateful" things about Group X, and which law is deemed constitutional. You are holding up the impossibility of achieving the perfect as a reason not to pursue the good.

We don't either. Political opinions are protected by the law.

No, they are not. The plain language of the relevant statutes, and such "investigations" as have occurred, make that clear.

Do you think this chills speech and academic freedom in Canada:

In Canada a reputable research psychologist named Jean Philippe Rushton presented a paper in 1989 in which he looked at three very broad racial groups and hypothesized that, on average, blacks’ reproductive strategy tends to emphasize high birth rates, Asians' tends toward intensive parental nurturing, and whites' tends to fall in between. The man was vilified in the press, he was denounced on national television (to his face) as a neo-Nazi, and his graduate students were advised to find a new mentor. That was not all. The Ontario provincial police promptly launched a six-month investigation of Rushton under Canada's hate-speech prohibition. They questioned his colleagues, demanded tapes of his debates and media appearances, and so on. "The provincial police officially assessed the question of whether Rushton might be subject to two years in prison for such actions as 'using questionable source data.' " In the end, the attorney general decided not to prosecute and settled for denouncing Rushton's ideas as "loony."

Rest of article here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/29358.html

In the Netherlands...

Yeah, I heart the Netherlands for many reasons (and wish the U.S. would emulate it on many issues). But we are are not discussing that isolated country per se, but rather, Canada and some European nations w/ hate speech laws.

Because it was an official complaint, the provincial police HAS to investigate it. That's called bureaucracy.

Uh-huh. And if they can terrorize you with a six month investigation for speech that ought not be crime, no biggie, right?

The cops SHOULD HAVE answered that published opinions are not a crime. But they could not, because of your nation's "hate speech" laws.

Was me. I don't have any idea why it showed up that way.

Yes, in some instances. But we have tended to correct the jurisprudential mistakes, as I said earlier.

But preaching hate at people, and consequently some few acting on that message to kill, should not be illegal. I hate neocons. If someone reading my diatribes against them decides to off, say, Michael Ledeen, that is not my responsibility.

The entire Left in the U.S. was not responsible, however intemperate some of their rhetoric, for the deaths and bombings of the Weathermen & etc.

I read Morrissey's post, hit the "Interstate Commerce" bit, and just gave up. He's a nice man, but literally hasn't a clue what the hell he is talking about in terms of the law and what courts are supposed to do.

Certainly I am not saying (and Glenn hasn't either), that only lawyers are qualified to make such assessments. But if one doesn't have a JD, one ought to be an educated layperson in such topics before one goes off on such entirely erroneous rants, and thus makes a fool of oneself -- however well received his post is among the equally ingerant right-wing blogs linking to him.

does Section 315 apply to cable channels, rather than networks? In its brief, NBC argued that it doesn't, and cited a case that pretty clearly seems to so hold, but I don't know.

But of course, the breach of K complaint could be dispositive. Not having read any of the pleadings, or the holding, I am not, however, claiming to know.