Jo. Love the red flashy bit. However there's no fault in my logic. You said that you would only legislate against speech which causes actual harm. My opinion (clearly one you don't share) is that the ultimate consequence of that policy would be to leave the victims of hate campaigns without any protection. OK, I didn't go to great lengths to express that opinion in the most carefully couched and unambiguous of terms.

At the risk of getting into still deeper water, I'd suggest that both freedom of speech and the right of individuals to a free, untroubled existence (ok, dream on on this last point) are absolute rights. By which I mean they can't be curtailed. Until you reach the point where they are incompatible with each other - which is exactly what we are talking about here. And IMO at that point it's the free speech which has to yield.

At least this approach (until someone points out further flaws in it) doesn't allow government to curtail my freedom of speech for its own ends.

Regards

G.