>Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.

Whether or not a deity will exist, their followers do. Speaking to them is what I'm referring to.

>Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.

Yet, Manson is rightly in jail.

>Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.

And yet we recognize speech as a crime. Threatening someone, slander, libel, bribery, and conspiracy are all comes. Intellectual property laws are government backed censorship on the grounds that people can call 'dibs' on some speech.

> The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.

And we have historical examples of cultures failing in this and lawfully committing genocide until others intervene. Law can provide an additional barrier to inhibit such cultural shifts.

I recognize that it is difficult to define where the line is crossed, but the notion that all speech should be limitless does not align with significant portions of philosophy or law.