From an American perspective, it seems bizarre that this concept would be controversial. The issue has less to do with any particular type of vile speech, and r

From an American perspective, it seems bizarre that this concept would be controversial. The issue has less to do with any particular type of vile speech, and rather the fact that "hate speech" is not a bright line [1], but a fuzzy and subjective gray area. One person's critique of Israeli government policy is another's anti-Semitism. I simply don't trust those with a legal monopoly on violence to make that kind of distinction. Creating an environment where citizens are forced play it safe by self-censoring inhibits thought and gives too much power to the state. While we do have limitations on free speech in the US, they at least tend to be bright lines: advocating specific violent actions, or intentionally causing social harm, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (This isn't to say that our ostensible rights aren't frequently violated, but that's a separate discussion.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule