“Every attempt to gag the free expression of thought is an unsocial act against society. That is why judges and juries who try to enforce such laws make themselves ridiculous.”

Caution: When crossing US or Canada border control points, having a single jpeg of the naked human body on your laptop is considered trafficking in pornography which is a very serious federal crime. They shook down someone I know and said if they find just one nude image on his computer, he was going to jail. Lucky for him, they didn't, despite spending several hours going through all his stuff on his computer. It can happen here, it is happening here.

According to this, it should be fine to preach the extermination of Jews, or anyone else.

This is why hate speech laws are so ridiculous. In America, each and everyone of us do have the right to preach the extermination of Jews. However, it is society, not laws, which push those who do to the fringe and labels them as crackpots. When you try to stifle that kind of speech through laws, you simply create a victim group and some will then give them a sympathetic ear. Canada, by the way, has those same type of hate speech laws, so watch what you say and don't you dare read the Bible out loud. I'm sure the Koran is fine, however.

Archer, thanks for the warning and good comment Ken. I'm in total agreement on hate speech laws.

"Hate speech" is not unlawful.  I have every right to hate anyone.  Feelings cannot be legislated.  Hate crimes are an insidious corruption of common law where a crime is defined as an intentional malicious act, referred to as mens rea.  It is the deciding factor in determining whether an act is criminal or not.  While Congress can make no law to abridge the rights to speech and the press, committing an act with malicious intent is still considered to be criminal, however, the punishment must fit the crime — what are the direct damages? 

To protest against illegal immigration is not a malicious act, unless the rights of another have been violated intentionally and with malice.  To decline to make a gay wedding cake is not 'hate.'  To hire a person based on merit is not 'hate' against those without.  To bear witness to atrocities committed by another is not hate.  How do these hate speech laws work when it comes to screaming 'F#@K YOU!'  I suppose the application of these laws are selective at best.  It may be a sin to hate, but it is not a crime.

Every attempt to gag the free expression of thought is an act against an individual sovereign. That is why judges and juries who try to enforce such unlawful despotism make themselves tyrants.