> Inciting a lynch mob is conspiracy to commit murder, so it's not a restriction on free speech that would prevent you from doing so.

On the contrary! The inciter doesn't explicitly call for the killing, rather they froth the crowd up into a frenzy by lies and emotion and then ask what that crowd is going to do about it... right about the time that a convenient victim from the "oppressor group" (Jews/blacks/etc.) comes into the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep...

Discrimination of that type in hiring contexts is illegal already, IIRC.

There's a cute Churchill quote about hiring a prostitute, that seems to apply here.

In short, the comment implied that the First Amendment has an absolute and total protection of speech as a way of saying my larger point is ridiculous.

But speech doesn't enjoy total protection, even in the U.S. And most people would identify some category of thing that they simply wouldn't let people say about another, whether it's stuff like personal and private IM/emails, information useful for identity theft, financial information, etc.

Almost everyone has something that they would say the First Amendment doesn't protect. So now the question people should ask themselves is what kind of other speech would they say warrants no protection? They've already agreed to prostitute their absolute protection of speech, now they need only negotiate on the 'cost'.

While this is a reasonable opinion, the parent was responding to a claim that "typing out http://some.website should never be a crime. Period." Since the harm supposedly caused by pasting the link is contested, this was presumably meant to mean that the consequences of typing out a link should not be considered, so the parent was reasonable in rebutting it with that example.