"gorillionaires"

"There is such thing as too much freedom/liberty."

The Freedom to swing your fist ends where the other persons nose begins? Is that what you mean? That I agree with, Teh_Sauce_Guy. Yelling fire ina crowded theatre is another as is leveling personal and believable/credible threats of harm against another person. But that is the limit.

Outside of these limits society needs to have open range to test and explore all ideas and opinions. A democracy thrives when the market place of ideas is unconstrained.

What harm does it do anyone that someone decides they will restart a Nazi Party in Switzerland? It was the lack of free speech and the laws against Marxists and others in Germany that let the NAZI party have free reign, right? What dissent there was was crushed by state laws and state bias.

Bad ideologies like that of Islamo-fascism cannot compete if the society will open up the debate to people driving home the ethics involved. If this is not so then we should just pack it on in and join a mosque (or other fascist headquarters).

Recall that it was the NAZI regime that outlawed the exact dissent that might have discredited it. Think! The German people never knew the complete program they had unwittingly voted for. All they knew was this charismatic leader was offering to make Germany great again. Once those Nazi programs were rolled out, it was the censorship that kept the people from having reporters and exposes written to inform them. How would the German people have reacted if they knew that Hitler and Stalin had entered into a pact?

Holy cow! How can we know that, today, because of all the media censorship and self censorship, we are not being lead into a similar catastrophe?

The answer to offensive or unpopular speech is simply more speech, not less. The answer to bad ideas are good, well argued ideas. If that is not the case then no amount of censorship is going to change our tragic futures.

"as long as it isn't malicious." Some have told me that I am malicious when I say that Islam denies the personal conscience and is unethical and that it needs to be opposed. I would be saying the same thing about the NAZI Party...do you see the irony there?

Malicious is a judgement. If the ground rules are "no shouting fire in a theatre" and yet the theatre is literally burning down around you, then there is a problem. Right?

But if the theatre has no fire then we have a legitimate case that someone is going to cause real harm.

(BTW: The SCOTUS case where the fire example was first used was against conscientious objectors who were proselytizing non-violence as the USA was trying to boost recruitment for WWI. Calling for people to pursue non-violence was called "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre". Is this getting ironic yet?)

Physical harm is the operative notion behind these restrictions on free speech. Do you agree? And we had better be REAL skeptical over even those claims.

"Hate Speech" Yet another terrible idea of conformity and the notion of people having a right to not be offended. Do they have that right at VOAT? Let me know ASAP.

"Swiss law should still be enforced on a Swiss site" I agree with that. You have an obligation to do that. But realize that you need a lawyer to spell out the limits. Those limits should strive to be unambiguous. Examples should be given. Let me know ASAP if you think my own speech is violating Swiss Law.

Whether Hate Speech is a good or bad thing, it depends on what is being hated and your own judgement. But Censoring is just plain evil. It is the only act of real violence that someone can commit onto another on the internet.