[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And you still haven't shown how you're going to accomplish this tightrope walk without destroying everything you claim to be protecting.

By setting limited objectives. Despite the sometimes slippery slope nature of this, Western society play this "tightrope walk" all the time. For example, in Germany, public denial of the Holocaust is IIRC a crime. That will actually of course be a crimping of freedom of speech. But it doesn't necessarily destroy the rest of free speech in Germany.

I know that the radical Islamists are dangerous. Here in America we lock up people for what they do, not for what they say.

Let me try an analogy. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of American law, but I suppose that considering all the freedom of speech and religion provisions, it would be legal for a certain major TV-station to allocate say 4-hours of prime time to radical Islam propaganda. Of course, it'll be just as legal not to allot them the time.

Now, given that the above is indeed legal, do you think that this is all hunky-dory?

IMO, it is one thing to not arrest a radical, be it a Islamist, Creationist, Communist or whatever as soon as he opens his big mouth. But a society can rightly choose not to give them the bright part of day, to allocate them less than prime-cuts of land, to make them put their propaganda in the relative recess of the Internet rather than on national TV, without necessarily harming freedom of speech.