[photon]

I guess that identifies another problem.

In an ideal world all people are introspective and question and change their own ethics over time etc etc.

Just like in an ideal world everyone is politically conscientious and make an effort to understand the issues an make good decision when they vote.

But the reality is that people don't, humans are sheep and heavily influenced by their subconscious and swayed by media and their peers. And I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion, it's just who we are.

Being able to spend time in thought about your morals and the consequences to society assumes that people even have the time or encouragement to do so. Happens a lot on a university campus, less so much when the entire society is in a tough situation with poverty and lack of education and all that.

I guess where I'm going with this is the idealist in me says "Free Speech Period". If a white supremacist group wants advocate hate they should be able to say it, others will call them out for it, and the superior position will win out.

But it's not an ideal world, not everyone does (or can) evaluate things, and even if they try they are still influenced by media and peer pressure and all kinds of other things.. so given that is it ok to limit free speech with "hate speech" type laws, because people can't protect themselves? But then who decides what's hate speech? By what standards? How do you prevent that from limiting legitimate speech?

It's above my pay grade, as they say.