While true that there ARE limits to what is allowed as 'free speech', they are DANGEROUS limits, for MANY reasons.

A few that spring immediately to mind -

By calling it 'dangerous' and banning it, you by definition empower the groups that use it within certain segments of society. Look over history, and you'll see many, many social movements that gained power immesurably when they were 'banned'. People will naturally be curious when forbidden from seeing/hearing somethign.

By banning certain aspects of history, you (as noted repeatedly above) greatly increase the chance that the reason for it being banned will recur.

Also as noted above, it's a very slippery and dangerous slope to start down - Once you've empowered a group to censor something, it's highly unlikely that they'll stop there.

This being said, there are times that I do believe that these things should be carefully watched. However, I am a firm believer that rather than banishing things such as the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust to the shadows (where the nasty elements will breed and gain stregnth), the much more effective tactic is to haul the whole mess into the blinding light of close examination. Show the world what the horror is, let the people see why these things are 'evil'.

The Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance is a wonderful example of this. Their exhibit on the Holocaust pulls no punches, and very effectively fills you with a devastating sense of the true horror that occured.

To sound somewhat hypocritical for a moment, some forms of speech DO need to be curtailed. The aforementioned 'yelling fire in a crowded theater'. Inciting a crowd to violent activity. Basically, speech that either directly creates harm against another group (and I don't include 'wounded self-esteem' as a reason to censor), or creates an atmosphere where harm is a direct result of the activity. The 'Your freedom to swing your fist stops where my nose begins' argument.

Even this, though, needs to be monitored. Authoritarian or Totalitarian government can be very scary...

M