"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Cyberstalking? In what way? if you're talking about intimidation, threats, harassment, slander or

identity theft, those things are already crimes and not really relevant to a debate which is, again, about whether or not "hate speech" or blasphemy, for instance, can be prohibited by law.

If I was making the argument that the 1st Amendment means you can say anything about anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, you might have a point- but I'm not. Obviously things like threats are not protected speech. Harrasment is not protected speech.

However, the argument some seem deeply vested in making here is that somehow, making a movie -however crappy, or ill-advised- that offends someone's religious sensibilities and which they themselves are under no duress or force to watch, is somehow a direct threat (it's not) a direct legal incitement to riot (it's not) harassment (it's not) shouting "fire in a crowded theater" (its not) or slander or character defamation (it's not). It's also not cyberstalking, copyright infringement, or counterfeiting money.

The question, to my mind, isn't "are there ever exceptions", it's is blasphemy or saying something that someone else finds personally offensive to their belief system, one of those exceptions. It's not, and furthermore I think arguing that it is, is an extremely unwise road to go down.

Furthermore, the reason "hate speech" is not a defined exception, is because it's fairly clear that under the precedence of the past 50-70 yrs of SCOTUS decisions, it would never, ever fly. And a simple walk down that road I mentioned, with the logical eventualities of such an exception, provides a fairly clear set of reasons as to why.