Freedom of Speech, again

""I pointed out to [the teacher] there's a limitation … to free speech," Butte said."

I recognize the logical limitations on freedom of speech. You can say I am purple, for example. If I am not purple, I can take you to court with a slander suit, and the court can (and should) tell you not to tell people I am purple. Here, though, my being purple is not open to opinion. It is a verifiable subject.

I happen to agree with the whole shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre as well. If my words are false and lead to injury, I should be held accountable. Having a fire or not is also an objective fact, although the law should (and does) allow for some room for error in the event of a mistake. If I am actively subverting the government (which is what Holmes was convicting someone of in the famous theatre quote), I should also be held accountable. I should redress my grievances lawfully.

However, here is where it ends for me. Don't lie. Don't deceive people intentionally. Don't try to overthrow the government. That makes sense to me.

But here's my problem. When did arguing a religious or political opinion fall out of the realm of freedom of speech? How can we pretend to be an open and tolerant society if we prevent certain groups from expressing their opinions? I'm as offended by the KKK as I am by most of what Al Sharpton says, but by God I want them both to be able to speak openly in a free society under the protection of the Constitution.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Not Voltaire, but still profound.