My issue stems more from the hypocrisy of some members. Looking at the Sweden assault, they're the great defenders of freedom of speech and cite the likes of the First Amendment, but they clearly don't understand how the First Amendment was intended to work. To hear them tell it, the "60 Minutes" crew had carte blanche to say what they wanted, when they wanted, where they wanted and to whom they wanted, and that anyone listening either had to take it or walk away.
But here's the problem: what the film crew did isn't considered free speech. I know that we're talking about a different jurisdiction, but in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that speech is not considered free when it is used to incite "imminent lawless action". Similar restrictions apply under Section 18C of our own Racial Discrimination Act. The film crew was running around a neighbourhood with a high immigrant population in the company of an outspoken anti-Islamic activist. They should have been able to reasonably forsee that their words had a high probability of resulting in violence, so given their inciting nature of their words, it's not protected speech.
