DonT:

The ACLU defended the free-speech rights of the detested American Nazi party (the right to march in Skokie) over this exact issue.

It is NOT the freedom to speak, write, or otherwise express thoughts that is in question. You cannot start down that slope just because some ideas are abhorrent to you, because someday, a lot of politivcal power just might end up in the hands of someone who thinks your own ideas are unacceptable. That way leads despotism and tyranny, even with the best of intentions.

The issue is, instead, one of defining the impact of speech in public as a social act. "Just ignore them" is a pretty lame solution if your creed and race are being defamed publically. Another solution is to identify the speaker and sue him for defamation of character or slander, which is already illegal and actionable. But you cannot chastise him for speaking. Legislating against "hate speech" is a tricky proposition, because it is not clearly definable. If I say the current Administration is a buncha bums and should be thrown out, is that hate speech? What if I insert a racial minority or religious group in place of "the current Administration"?

This is a very dicey area to tinker with, in terms of long-term losses to the best of America's core postulates of liberty.

A