Presumably in reference to my post with the Wikipedia article and the bit of fascist song—and the notation that the singing of songs of the Third Reich is illegal in Germany:

"I guess freedom of speech is dead in germany so you wish it to be universally dead?"

That is completely disingenuous, Conrad. Freedom of speech is NOT dead in Germany, as, I'm sure, will be attested to by any German Mudcatter or Mudcatters who live in Germany (and there are some). What they have done—and which has been rightly done in many countries—is to outlaw hate speech.   Speech that attempts to promulgate hatred of, or incite violence against, particular groups of people such as, in the case of the Third Reich, Jews, gypsies, non-whites, and people with disabilities, who were regarded as "a burden on the State."

Freedom of Speech is not, nor should it be, without some rational limitations. In many countries, including the United States, if one were to simply verbally threaten to kill or injure someone else, this is considered assault, for which one can be legally prosecuted.

Another example would be if you were to call in a false alarm, reporting that there is a fire when there is no fire, you can be charged and prosecuted for this. And trying to claim that you were merely exercising your Constitution right of freedom of speech would not be a defense.

There is the old cliché about Freedom of Speech not extending to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do this, and people panic and are injured or killed in their rush toward the exits, you are legally liable. Likewise, if you incite someone to kill or injure someone else. You are equally guilty, both legally and morally.

Best, in your zeal for Freedom of Speech, not to forget that.

No, Conrad, trying to incite hatred and violence, either in speech, in writing—or in song—is not protected by the doctrine of Freedom of Speech.

Don Firth