Re: Free Speech?
"Who gets to decide where the division between free speech and forbidden speech lies..."
That's what the courts are for: They decide.
"Where do you draw the line ?"
Actually, it's not that difficult, either.
If I say that Martians were responsible for atrocities in the wars of 1810, resulting in the deaths of millions of ants: That is free speech. I can say it. It might offend people, but it's a statement they can show as being utterly rubbish (not too hard).
If I then went on to say that we should do something about it... that isn't free speech and what I suggest or even hint at being done could be judged as incitement.
The only grey area (pun intended) is where action is not called for but might be implied. Something like 'It is intollerable that Martians should kill innocent ants by their millions' certainly implies that something should be done, but it's not actually being called for.
This is how the likes of the Western Baptist Church and the current KKK persist. As long as they moderate their tone to express their beliefs then they are exercising freedom of speech. The moment they even hint that people should take any action at all... they're no longer protected.
And mentioning the Western Baptist Church isn't by accident - I've wondered for a time if all they are doing is demonstrating how far freedom of speech can be taken, and that was their whole plan from the outset.
Anyway, people only give offence if that was their intent. In all other cases, offence is being taken, and under no circumstance should taking offence be protected.
(edited as I noticed I'd used speach not speech... doh!)