It is hard to understand how you could make such conclusion. I do not support abolishing civil rights and I never said anything close to it. What I was saying i

It is hard to understand how you could make such conclusion. I do not support abolishing civil rights and I never said anything close to it. What I was saying is that freedom of speech is not absolute and dogmatic American constitution is wrong about it. Human rights exist only in society and the society not just defines them, but also constrains them. There’s no property rights on uninhabited island or freedom of speech in an empty room where there’s no one to talk to. But where property rights exist because there are people who agreed to recognize them, there are also trespassing laws: the freedom of movement is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. And property rights themselves are constrained: you cannot use your land to stockpile nuclear waste and sometimes you have to mow your lawn. There’s no reason to assume that freedom of speech should not be constrained in a similar way. The dogma is based on an assumption that any constraint to this freedom may lead to tyranny. The historical evidence, including your example, shows that this protection of freedom is not efficient and quite often can be harmful, enabling extremists to build up the foundation to seize the power.