Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[Kralizec]

So you think the latter should be illegal to say?

Well, it would not be taken seriously. I just wanted to demonstrate the difference between arguing that something should be punished and arguing that people ought to do something about it themselves.

That distinction is ridiculous. The state is a representative of the people (in theory) and saying that the state should murder Irish people is equally as wrong and violence-inciting as saying the citizens should do it themselves - and the result will likely be the same. If people think murdering the Irish is silly they will ignore you. If they think it has merit, they will do it themselves or charge the state to do so.

It's a silly example, to be honest. I do feel that you should be able to say that, for example, homosexuality should be illegal and punishable. I don't think it should be permissable for an imam to say that individual muslims ought to pick up the stones themselves and pelt gay people in broad daylight. Do you think the latter should be legal?

1. it suggests that these are the gradual restrictions of free speech, which is not true. For example hate speech (the 2nd option in the poll, for which many members voted) is stricter than other limitations (not included in the poll, like defense against libel) and was only introduced in the 20th century.
2. these aren't all the cases of restriction. F.e. defense against libel or copyright infringement leads to the limitation of free speech, or the freedom of press (part of free speech) can be also restricted to ensure another right, the right to information.

#2 does not cover "hate speech". It says "mild regulation against incitement of violence against groups"
I think the poll options might be slightly flawed myself, but not for the reason you mentioned. But that's more because I'm cynical. There ought to be an option that says "criticising a religion should be punishable if it turns out followers of said religion manage to personally take offense from it". Because that's what the case against Wilders is really about.

This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

Libel is where you deliberately make false and malicious statements affecting an individual, or a group of identifyable individuals (and not something as broad and vague as a religious community).
Fearmongering: is this even a crime in itself?
Flag desecration isn't illegal in the USA or in Holland and shouldn't be- of course if you tear down the flags in front of a government office it's something different.

Perjury and copyright enfringement (wich you mentioned earlier) do, strictly speaking, limit what you can say. The first is a specific crime to ensure people tell the truth when under oath in a judicial procedure and the second is about commercial abuse of stuff other people created. This discussion is about what you can and cannot say about religions.