Oh wow. People actually did that? Frequently?

This is a great answer, glad it's modded up, but why funny? Anyway, I second this, it's about what I was going to say.

You just need some time and experience. The fact that you're even asking and thinking about it is a good sign.

A good friend of mine also has a theory about male technological hierarchical sorting, and that there's this sort of 'dick-measuring-contest' when a bunch of men meet up where they each sort out their place in the pecking order and their particular skills relative to each others', a self-organization. Could be some of that going on too.

It's what we call "increasing profit".

Well, this is a good point. So, can that apply to the Internet as a 'place'?

I meant that they are in line with those people in that they say and do really controversial things for personal/financial gain, not in terms of specific political ideology.

*Technically* Australia is not located in the Western World. However, it was settled and is largely populated by the descendents of people from the West and I would argue that the culture is primarily Western.

I understand, and IANAL. I just feel like the Free Speech Zone thing violates the spirit of the First Amendment, even if the courts have decided that doesn't violate the letter of the law.

Yeah any hope I had that Obama would improve things (I did hope so, though I did not vote for him) has been quashed.

I have to say, I don't generally like Hilary Clinton, but I was suitably impressed that Hilary Clinton basically said, "Yeah it's a terrible movie, and we do apologize that it offended you so much, but we allow people to make and post terrible movies here. Move along."

Think of the children!

I would say that falsely yelling 'Fire' in a crowded room (I know, the canonical example of limitations to the First Amendment) is not equivalent to provoking rage. In one case, you are (falsely) advising people of a dangerous situation, and they are acting to self-preserve. They are more or less doing what rational, responsible people should do in trying to get out. In the case of provoking rage or provoking someone to commit a crime strictly with words (not, say, a gun to the head), that person would have to decide how they are going to respond to your words. If they respond in an illegal way, IMO, that is their responsibility and not yours. I understand this opinion may not mesh with case law in the USA.

Oh no, but they're allowed to say that, because they are right! </sarcasm>

Actually, I doubt that. They are not an extreme version of what the people controlling this country believe. They're a bunch of psychopaths that try to provoke a response so they can sue. I put them more in line with Anne Coulter and whatshisface on Fox that had his show finally shut down because he took it too far. I doubt they believe 1/3 of what they say, they're just in it for money and power.