FAKE NEWS. Stop lying to protect leftists. As usual the left was very violent.
http://www.bostonherald.com...

Just barely, but without a doubt. America is plagued by cultural marxist hatred.

The " identity politics " Democrats have been hostile to the free speech tradition in the United States for decades now. I don't want FAKE NEWS mainstream news media to brand numerous groups on the right and on the left as " hate " groups and then make it most difficult for them to communicate their message - which may be about a lot more than politically incorrect " hate ".

The " identity politics " zealots are very competitive in this odious HATE business. The attacks on old Confederate monuments are nothing less than mindless. Working class Americans are concerned with Bread & Butter issues not with SYMBOLS -annoying or awe inspiring.

Having been warned by their wiser leaders that " identity politics " was no winner in the 2016 election the Democrats are nevertheless doubling down on fatuous " identity politics

They want us to know that THEY love everybody - even all the blameless souls of the military industrial complex, the innocents in the Pentagon, the CIA , the FBI , Homeland Security - ALL socialist pacifists at heart. They are all forgiven in advance for nuclear World War III .

The good Democrats extend their LOVE to all the victims of American capitalism and US imperialism- which the party , of course, supports. These victims are of ALL races and ethnic groups. A multi-cultural future holocaust.

Sorry, NPR liars and fake-news generators, but political speech is the "MOST PROTECTED" speech according to the current courts' consensus interpretation of U.S. Constitutional law.

Agree about Free Speech
but, what happens when hate speech becomes free speech

I believe general hate speech was already ruled protected speech by the Supreme Court.
May not be the entire list, but I think at least the following aren't considered protected speech: provocation to fight, incitement/solicitation to commit crimes, defamation/slander/libel, perjury, blackmail, true threats, and treason. And, not spoken but also plagiarism of copyrighted material and child pornography too.

Here's an example of how the "hate speech* doctrine could have been applied to minority perspectives. A federal appellate court rightly declined that invitation. See: https://goo.gl/4n5LcB

Au contraire mes amis, violence did occur...

As many as 2,000 “hostile” protesters surrounded police, some
throwing bottles filled with urine and punching and spitting at cops as
they tried to escort participants from Saturday’s “Free Speech Rally”
out of Boston Common, according to police reports filed in court
yesterday.

The crowd answered an order to disperse with “a barrage
of insults directed toward the officers,” the police narrative states.
As cops in riot gear began pushing back the crowd with their batons and
shields, “they were met with violent resistance,” the reports state. One
riot cop’s face shield was cracked, while protesters tried to rip off
the officers’ protective gear and grabbed one officer’s radio.

Bye bye troll.

You trying to impersonate somebody who regularly posts here is shameful.

Mr Silverglate is correct in general but missed an important exception of "hate speech." Brandenburg exception is that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. In Boston, the question is did the police action "proscribe" the speakers in order to protect the speakers or other from imminent lawless action that it would be likely to incite. These questions are not esoteric. Given the events in Charlottesville, including what happened to one of the speakers at a later press conference where he was chased from the scene, it is very likely that the actions of the police in Boston reasonably proscribed the speakers for their own good, even if this meant barring the press from the platform to hear the specific comments. It is not legal to forbid speech based on its content only. It is legal to forbid speech if that speech could cause immediate lawless action, like what occurred in Charlottesville and would most likely have occurred in Boston.

That is incorrect. Unless the content of the speech is itself an incitement to violence, it cannot be censored. The reaction by a crowd to the speech cannot be a factor otherwise unpopular speech will be silenced. Should Salman Rushdie be silenced because religious extremists objected through violence? Should flag burning no longer be protected if the people that offends turn to violence as a response to it? What if the Mormons behaved like other religions and reacted violently to a musical?

As a libertarian woman, it's frightening that you can be so easily labeled racist by people who have never listened to your actual thoughts. I helped fight for interracial marriage in the 90s and supported gay marriage. But i have other conservative views like Pro-Life, small government and free speech for all. But because I'm against banning speech and against identity politics, I'm labeled a racist.

You're not alone. Have you noticed that anything the Nazi/KKK scum say or do is blamed on Trump? Nothing the Marxist scum do is reported. Thank you media.

The First Amendment was written to protect those who express unpopular opinions !

"Free speech" is NOT Nazis and white supremacists with guns and sticks and threatening behavior and marching on a college campus - without permission - shouting Nazis slogans against Jews.
"Free speech" is NOT Nazis standing outside a synagogue with their guns, threatening.
There are limits. There really are!

The racists in Boston weren't armed. They were not on a college campus. They were not at a synagogue. They have a right to speak in a public place no matter how despicable their views.

Maybe in your country, in the US the right to free speech is one of the fundamental principles our country was founded upon.

And this wasn't that. Antifa DON'T decide those limits!

The press should have been able to access the "free speech" rally. As for the crowd, they knew what the event was. The organizers made an effort to change its tone after Charlottesville. They canceled their more provocative speakers in advance, as though it would matter. They scheduled those speakers knowing what they would say. The protesters were not required to be silent. The crowds were so large, it's unlikely the rally speakers would have been heard, no matter what.

There seems to be an assumption that the police prevented people from entering the common or that they treated the "free speech" people with less respect. They literally escorted them and pampered them by providing them with transport off the site. They gave them 500 cops to protect them from unrest. How is that "not treating them special"? I'll tell you, I've never received a police escort to a safe space at a rally. Now if there were specific individuals (police or otherwise) in the front preventing people who were trying to attend from entering, that's not right. But, how do you prove you are coming with peaceful purpose? Do you wear a pro-nazi tshirt? Also, you can't blame the police or the counter-protesters for the fact that these "free speech" people didn't bother to buy an av system. It's no one's responsibility but their own to get equipment for their own rally.

They had their little bund rally. People didn't care for them or their racist message. The police kept the peace. Nobody got murdered. I don't see the issues.

The issue, not reported here, is that the left responded violently and attempted to injure police. http://www.bostonherald.com...

The right of free speech is not a guarantee of an audience, or protection from the results of what you say.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Of course they are protected. If not you end up with a situation like Bangladesh where atheist bloggers are being killed by the good god fearing people carrying out the will of the community.

Don't be ridiculous - that is murder, and that is a crime.

It has nothing to do with free speech protection.

While we're at it - money is not speech. Money is property, and therefore it is not protected speech.

Mob rule and your claims that people don't need to be protected for their objectionable speech lead to violence. I agree money is not speech. Also corporations should not have the same rights as citizens.

"or protection from the results of what you say."
It does protect your from violence. No one has the right to respond to speech they disagree with with violence against persons or property.

"Free speech" is a red herring.

You can't demand civil rights while campaigning to revoke other people's civil rights.

Right - they are trying to play the victim, so they can then spread their vitriol.