Garantir a liberdade de expressão é em primeiro lugar proteger a liberdade de exprimir "pensamentos que odiamos"

Algumas decisões do Supremo Tribunal dos EUA sobre a liberdade de expressão do chamado «hate speech» tornam inconstitucional a censura de ideias e palavras desconformes com a vulgata dos áctivismos anti-rácistas e anti-qualquer coisa, inspirados pelos centros da doutrina do politicamente correcto.

É claro que nada disso tem a ver com o Portugal dos Pequeninos onde o «discurso de ódio» pouco mais é do que o discurso dos que se apresentam como inimigos do «discurso de ódio», e onde o governo, com o ruidoso silêncio da oposição, da comentadoria do regime e do jornalismo de causas se propõe policiar o discurso de ódio.

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)

«When the National Socialist Party of America, better known as Nazis, was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers sought a permit from the suburban city of Skokie, where one-sixth of the town's population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march in court, citing a city ban on wearing Nazi uniforms and displaying swastikas. 

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower ruling that the Skokie ban was unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the justices declined to hear the case, in essence allowing the lower court's ruling to become law. After the verdict, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.»

(Fonte)

Matal v. Tam (2016) 

 Opinion of Justice Samuel Alito. 

«[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

 Opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy 

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.»

(Fonte)