I, like the ACLU, defend Freedom of Speech.  I do NOT defend "hate speech"...I deplore it.  Our difference is, I think, a tactical one...Just how should hate speech be "met"?  I read that you would censor it and not allow persons like Duke or Spenser to spread their message of hate.  I, on the other hand, feel it can be met and defeated "out in the open."  I agree it's a huge challenge and understand the feeling that it should simply be stiffled.  If we look at the history of the Civil Rights Movement there were concerted efforts to stifle the voices promoting racial equality.  Fortunately, they were not successful.  We're not seeing the "flip side" with those voices promoting racism and white supremacy.  The question is "simple", yet very complex.  Should "good" voices be protected by the First Amendment and "bad" voices silenced by censorship?  Either action, equal freedom or "selective" freedom has costs and rewards.  I think we disagree on that cost/reward judgment.  Gary Crum