"Sticks and stones may break my bones; but words will never hurt me."
Freedom of speech means no limit to speech. That doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for speech, for example, that urges violence - if violence is a result of that speech. And if that violence happens, the speaker should be addressed as makes sense for each case related to possible consequences of the effects of that speech, right along with the perpetrators of the violence itself.
You can't legislate goodwill toward your fellow man - but you can legislate consequences when less-than-good-will turns to violence.
The over-riding principle should be, in my opinion, that people have a duty to themselves and those around them not to physically or mentally harm others without a need for self-defense. If you try to stop a future crime by limiting what people can say, you are in effect punishing people before a crime has been committed by removing rights of exp<b></b>ression. If that is the goal and everyone is happy with it - fine, but it's not free speech at that point.
Rights are both limited and granted in this world only by governments. A government can grant whatever level of speech it sees fit, as long as it continues to have power. If it limits speech, speech is not free no matter how much leeway is given, and whether that particular limitation is perceived as right or wrong.
Someone who is a racist should be allowed to speak his or her mind - the people that don't want to listen to it don't have to. The people that perform violence as a result of what someone says should be held accountable for their actions, and if appropriate, the original speaker to whatever extent is reasonable.
I'm not saying there may not be a perceived reason to limit certain speech, but therein lies the devil when the body politic starts deciding where the line to free speech begins - and ends.
