yes, exactly

AOL!

all freedoms have natural, logical limitations: where they impinge on someone else's freedoms

Sure. Now, please, explain, whose freedoms were impinged by the speech in TFA...

It shouldn't be ok to incite mass panic (yelling fire in a crowded venue)

It shouldn't, huh? How about statements like "President is a war-criminal" or "He is not a natural-born citizen" — can such speech not some day be banned under the same doctrine? Because it does interfere with the government's efficiency and, consequently, the entire country's quality of life, does not it? We might think this ridiculous today, but many countries — including the various worker's paradises — consider insulting the Dear Leader a felony already. Don't you recognize a slippery slope while sliding down on it?

There is a movement to ban "hate speech" already. The entire Yik Yak app is banned on many campuses and today's students are being trained to accept such a ban already, so it can not be far away, that the thought-police spills out from those institutions into the rest of our world.

For the past 7 years, the number one rebuttal to any critics of the current President was that they are "haters". Do you think, we are far away from the sitting President becoming off-limits for criticism? We aren't — and it all started, when we were sold the bogus premise of "some speech ought to be illegal"...

It is naive to think that complete, and total, freedom of speech was ever intended.

Is it naive? Then I share my naivete with Benjamin Franklin, for example — a Founding Father — who considered any abuses of the freedom of speech to be a lesser evil than entrusting anyone the power to suppress them. For example:

Those abuses of the freedom of speech are exercises of liberty. They ought to be repressed; but to whom dare we to entrust the care of doing it. An evil magistrate intrusted with power to punish for words, would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible. Under pretense of pruning off the exuberant branches he would be apt to destroy the tree.

Do you honestly believe, the fine magistrates of the 21st century Virginia would've helped calm Franklin's fears of that "the most destructive and terrible" weapon?

Hey, I invite you to come to Texas.

We are having an art exhibit next week. I think you'd like it.

A Protest is a perfectly acceptable method of expressing a positions/opinions. In fact, the Bill of Rights explicitly protects it. There is nothing extraordinary about a protest...whether it's over Piss Christ or the fact that a University is going to start charging for chocolate milk.

You might as well point out that people use Ketchup on their hot dogs.

Because so many people have been killed over Piss Christ.

Moron.

I think they have a lot in common with the sideways shooting gang bangers.

What the hell is up with that anyway?

Islamic Porn....before and after pics...Burka, no Burka.

Could be a game show too!

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Meaningless maxim. Meaningless, but dangerous to all of our freedoms, for it allows discarding any part of the Bill of Rights at the moment's notice.

We are not obligated to ignore threats.

Irrelevant. We are obligated to not make them illegal. That's all.

Blonde is "race".

No, it is not. Two blonds can have a brunette child, for example.

There are thousands (if not more) of cases on race.

So cite one, where the accusation was based on the supposed victim(s) hair-color.

I will not respond again until you offer a valid link — you've made enough unsubstantiated claims already.

You vote for these kinds of people all the time, and they do run banks, and churches, etc.

First of all, please, provide citations.

Second, do you not agree, that, if true, such would be a sad state of affairs?

Do you also agree that he should have been, at his age, allowed to [...]

I do not agree with that and do not understand, why you accuse me of "hypocrisy" because of it.

That he is not an adult may affect his legal status and/or lessen the extent of the prosecution.

That his moral failings deserve strict censure — and can not be discounted as merely a "stupid mistake" — is quite different.

you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it

Whether you ignore it or not is irrelevant. It should not be illegal.

The First Amendment makes no exceptions for "threats" — our understanding that shouting "fire" in a crowded place is illegal is flatly wrong, the Amendment protects that speech from government's actions like any other.

Well, if such a thing as "Harassment by Computer" should be illegal, this guy's actions seem to qualify for it.

But I don't think, it should be. In fact, too much speech is already considered illegal — and the list is likely to grow as the Illiberals are trying to add "hate-speech" to the prohibited list.