"2.   Incitement to racial hatred is in a different class to most other speech. "

Why?

In the days of Gallileo, the Church told scientists, you can reserach whatever you want but don't find anything out that contradicts the rulings and dogmas of the Church. Galileo did not only discover something but he had the nerve to publish it.

A system that sets certain bounds, and says certain topics are off-limit is not truly free. Many people have been tortured and died for the right to speak freely. In many parts of the world this barbarism still continues today. So why should anybody living in a free country voluntarily forfeit this right in order not to offend certain oversensitive individuals?

Freedom of expression must stand above the sensitivities of certain groups. If I'm not allowed to offend ethnic minorities, then I shouldn't be allowed to offend religious minorities. I shouldn't be allowed to tell jokes about lawyers or politicians. All these could be interpreted as incitements to hate. A statement of fact or of opinion, even if slanted or incomplete cannot be an incitement to hatred. It is part of a debate about certain topics. Anybody who resorts to violence because of such a statement probably would have resorted to violence anyhow. I haven't seen any sudden increase in racial crime following the release of this song. Let's not see daemons where there aren't any.