> I am not sure it would have take much time to the Japanese to check
> their facts with the fires that led to Tokyo burning in 1923. The
> rumor had it it was the Koreans and the result is that 1000s of them
> were slaughtered by the Japanese mob.
I don't know anything about this incident, but it may well be that this was a case of incitement such as *would* be prohibited under US law. Quite obviously, however, the vast majority of cases of racist speech do not result in 1000s of people being slaughtered by mobs.
> Racism and racist speech _do_ lead to immediate and unpreventable
> effect. And if you don't "believe" so, just check recent history
> (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, to name only a few easy references).
On the other hand I do know quite a bit about Yugoslavia and Rwanda and both cases (Yugoslavia in particular) had to do with a lot more than just racist speech. Even to the extent that racist speech did play a role in those conflicts, the context in which they occurred was a crucial factor. That context is not universal. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that allowing the odd Nazi parade in Chicago (or wherever) is going to result in another Srebrenica.
> Speech is a very special category of activity because it creates the
> mental conditions that automatically lead to actions. Hate speech
> generates heinous feelings and hate crimes.
This would suggest that anyone who hears hate speech becomes a racist and takes out their racist views on others. Again this is plainly not the case.