So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that

[Warren DeMontague]

48. And people keep trying to make that argument, which is disturbing.

Saying something that pisses people off- even something that you KNOW is going to piss people off- is still protected speech.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. These arguments have been shot through many times.

As far as your list, starting with "Obscenity"- much to the chagrin of Rick Santorum, "obscenity" isn't prosecuted very much in the US, in the 21st century. Most of the rest of them don't apply, either. It wasn't a thread, it wasn't perjury, it wasn't defamation (you can't "defame", "libel" or "slander" a mythological figure, sorry) etc. etc.

So we come back to incitement and fighting words. Fighting words has been narrowed by the court repeatedly. Last time they tried it was a Vietnam protester who said "fuck the draft". While it must be terribly traumatic for some people to realize that the constitutional precedent with which the government attempted to shut down Vietnam anti-war protests is essentially meaningless, today, the fact is, it is.

If you don't believe me, find any recent case where people were prosecuted for "fighting words", anything even remotely like "holding a contest that involved cartoons someone else found offensive". Likewise "incitement".

You can't, because the bottom line is, [font size=5]IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO SAY THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT OFFEND PEOPLE'S RELIGION, OR MAKE THEM MAD.[/font]

Not even if it makes them REALLY mad, not even if you KNOW it will make them mad.

And that's a good thing. Full stop.

What is the difference between your argument, here, and the argument of someone who tries to shut down a gay pride parade in a conservative area, because there are lots of homophobes around? It might be "highly likely to provoke violence", in fact the march organizers might KNOW it was likely.

Shit, MLK's march on selma-- by your logic, he was guilty of something, civil rights leaders were guilty of something, because "what they were doing was highly likely to provoke radicals to violence".

Why did the Supreme Court let the Nazis march in skokie? Do you understand, at all, what the 1st Amendement ACTUALLY is and does?

It just blows me right the fuck away. I guess for some people it must be frustrating, living with such an broad standard of liberty like the 1st Amendment.. and thought of being able to shut down all that nasty speech they don't like, is so tempting.