Speech generally shouldn't be restricted but there should also be an underlying agreement that most of what passes for "hate speech" really is not all that serious. The translation from thought to deed is where most of the trouble arises. There should never be a real "thought police" type situation in a nation of free men, although the internet does raise some unique issues with foreign nationals/foreign intelligence services doing things previously thought unthinkable and beyond common humanistic sense and sensibility. If there is scarcely any of that then there's not much culpability. And in cases between disparate groups, the Yankee is overstepping his boundaries in trying to police things that have been going on elsewhere since the world has been turning.

An example. Who is the protected class in a hate feud between Dominican and Haitian? There's history there that third parties can't even begin to comprehend until they've lived it for themselves. No different from Armenian and Turk, or Israeli and Syrian. As an American, imo, there is no protected class in these spats until a party has dropped their prior national or ethnic identity and given "American" and "citizen" their primary regard. Then they will be extended a protected class not as Haitian, or Dominican, or Jew, but as an American. Americans can verbally bash other Americans willy nilly so long as there's a base level understanding around a few national principles. There's been a very raw deal for US Americans in recent years where we're effectively subsidizing all of these stupid third world spats with our time, attention, and moral sanction and filling ourselves with sensible but needless hate in the process.

The model needs to be adjusted accordingly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874516&forum_id=2#49940829)