A man goes to the bar, gets blitzed, hooks up with a lady and makes with the bow-chicka-wow-wow, wakes up in the morning to find out, "OMGWTFBBQ ITS A MAN!!!!11!!1!111111one!111!!!!" It's a tired stereotype. We've all heard it.

It used to be that I found this old joke hilarious, but now that I find myself in a position where I could be on the other side of it I feel guilty laughing. On the one hand, I am a passionate advocate of freedom of speech. On the other, I feel that everyone has a right to live without being mocked. It really makes you think about how difficult it is to create laws and legislations when even basic human rights can so easily contradict each other.

The tranny joke is just one of about six billion examples. I just chose that one because it hits close to home. I'm curious to know where the rest of you stand on the subject. Are you completely anti-censorship? Do you think it's a necessary evil? Drill a hole in your skull and spill your precious brain goo. I'm anxious to see what it looks like!

Fat jokes CAN hit close to home for me, though not all of them.  Some feel malicious, and once in a while, the expressions of outright disgust I hear about fat is extremely painful.  Nonetheless, I accept that people have the right to make these jokes and comments, and a right to their opinion.  I have an equal right, if I'm so inclined, to decide they are self-righteous twits who are excessively focused on appearance.

Sock, I think your idea, that everyone has the right to live without being mocked, is what I most disagree with.  It's a simple fact of life that everyone will be mocked, and typically over things they are most sensitive about.  It's something I explained to my daughter when she was young and got teased for having red hair and freckles.  If it wasn't that, she would have been too tall, too short, too skinny, too fat, too smart, too dumb, too weird, or too boring.  Or there'd be racial stereotypes, cracks about socioeconomic status - something.  It's something we all have to learn to deal with. 

Besides, if everyone should be able to live free of mockery, that would have to extend to political figures, celebrities, and other public personages.  I'm just not willing to live in a world like that. 

In all seriousness though, I think that, even when I disagree violently with what is said, the right to say it is paramount.  I also think that if you are willing to say it, you have to be ready to live with the consequences of that speech.  That includes the right of others to disagree vehemently, the right of society as a whole to shun you, and the possibility that someone might take violent exception to your words.  This is not to say I condone violence in such cases - only to recognize things DO happen, and you've got to weigh the risks of what you say, before you speak to any audience.  And, unfortunately, whenever the criminal justice system steps in, you've probably already suffered for whatever it is you said.   If the words are more important to you than the risk you take by speaking them - by all means, say them. 

I do think that censorship is acceptable in two cases:  In broader society it is necessary only such that it prevents the breakout of violence or panic (the Fire in a crowded theater exception).  In small groups, it is good to have a community standard of tolerable behavior within the community - sort of a "you can say whatever you want, but if it gets ugly, take it outside".   That's not limiting what you say, that's only saying that we don't want to hear it, thanks. 

They have a right to mock; I have a right to respond, should I so choose.

Say whatever you like but own the consequences.

Tell a kid how to make napalm, your fault if he singes his eyebrows off and kills his dog. Incite a crowd to riot, or encourage/abet criminal activity, and be arrested. Yell fire in a crowded theatre, and be lambasted for being such a silly cliche. And if you're using your words to blackmail or coerce someone, that's a crime too; tell someone you're going to hurt or kill them, and they can use that in court to make a self defense plea.

So yeah, say whatever you like about trannies and whatever, but if you follow one home while muttering nasty things to them, that's harassment or intimidating behaviour or any other kind of legal construct that encompasses "behaviour society gets mad at you for". Anything that's not some kind of crime is fair game. I don't think it's necessarily "censorship" to hold people to account for actions perpetrated using words.

I tend to err on the side of free speech rather then sparing an obnoxious persons delicate feelings, though. As you guys may or may not have noticed.

Yeah, what she said!

Hey - not all riots are righteous, nor are all things worthy or safe to teach.

1. There are instances when a protest erupting into a riot makes it worse for the message the protestors are trying to get across. 
Anger, rightful or not, as they say, must be tempered by wisdom.  While injustices and crimes that are the causes of anger may and MUST be responded to in kind, the anger that stems from it must be held in check - else rash decisions will be made which inevitably will lead to regret, harm, and sorrow.
There is a TIME and a PLACE for anger, and for anything to get done, there must be a substantial measure of mastery over one's anger or emotional response, else you will be nothing more than wrathful.
That said, there are times when a riot is the way to go.  Any martial artist worth their salt will tell you that violence and physical intervention is a LAST resort - that all other avenues must be tried, but that nonetheless it IS a resort. 
The same applies to mass expressions of anger and fury as in a riot - sometimes there is no other way, and when that happens, it becomes the right way.

2. Teaching comes with a measure of responsibility - as with ALL positions of guidance, such as with a counselor, or a Big Brother, or a parent.
Surely the teacher is not directly responsible for a student's crimes resulting from things they're taught, and it definately ought not be taken to court.
But in such a case as a student misusing what was taught to him or her, the question must be asked - how exactly was the info taught to the student?  Dangerous information must be taught hand-in-hand with both the information that it is dangerous and the correct and safe methods of using said information - and the consequences that will result from the information's misuse.
If the teacher neglected these things, then the teacher -must- assume some portion of culpability - just as it is the parents' responsibility to allow kids to play video games while making it clear that those things are not real.

Either way - from what it sounds like, its likely a more finely granulated issue that it may initially be made out to be.
Then again, its a world of grays, so that ought not be all that surprising.

That all you got to say?

I know.

But is that all you got to say?

You sure have a weird way of expressing your agreement (or lack of disagreement) with someone.

This is bunk. You're conflating insulting speech, dangerous information, engaging in controversy, and actual criminal behavior and labeling all of it as being rightfully subject to the chilling effect of political correctness. These things have different purposes, methods, and defenses, and even examples that are actually illegal or immoral are not wrong for the reason you seem to be saying they are.

In particular, I think that accepting "inciting a crowd to riot" as a criminal act is fairly naive; a crowd riots because it's angry, and when a person says something to lift the wool from their eyes so that they realized they are not alone or powerless, they are basically engaging in revolution. While collateral damage is common in this disorganized context, the only real reason it's a crime is that it threatens the people in power, being a precursor to real, orderly opposition. This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that once a crowd gets big enough, any government is going to start being really sloppy about the difference between a protest and a riot, and who actually "incited" it. If you're the man in charge, putting your opponents in jail usually seems like a good idea if you can get away with it. The existence of this law ensures that it will be abused.

Arguably though, the napalm example is even worse. You basically just killed science. If it is the teacher's responsibility when a student does something dumb, then it is dangerous to teach, because there will always be dumb students. Your post in general has the tone of one who decries the lack of personal responsibility in our society, but what you want to do about it would in fact destroy its last vestiges.

Bistro: what if the speaker that incites the crowd to riot lied in order to get their violent response? What culpability do they have? Sure they didn't personally trash all the cars, break all the windows, and/or loot all the stores but they encouraged those results.