I never claimed it didn't work.
I am claiming that suppressing it is, in the long run, more detrimental to the suppressors than not suppressing it.
Find me a middle-ground here. The problem is that I do agree with both your statements:
* That hate speech works, (long term)
* and that on the long term suppressing hate is detrimental.
* Conclusion: Sh1t. (long term)
And did that develop from a society that applied universally free speech?
The Egyptian society of the time was quite open, they built several newspapers, were #3 in the world for movie production (prize winning), you were not allowed to criticize the king (and mohammad?) but pretty much everything went by, which is what happens in reality, even in societies that permit free-speech.
So it was not universal free speech. However to make a theory that 'universal free speech' is a good antidote, such a theory can not be accepted at face-value.
Because, even if you are correct, then we still have to deal with the reality that "Universal Free Speech" is a pipe-dream. Universal FS will not happen. Which places your solution onto the bookshelf of Utopias. I think Panoptic contributed a lot of (enough) books to that shelf already.
I need a more realistic solution from you. Something that can work. Universal Free Speech fails because you will always have the idiot who screams 'fire' in a full theater, and the zealot who will call the prayer to xenu on microphones at 4:00am (or is it allah?), and the asscracker who will put a 'dead niggers storage' on his frontlawn, etc.. etc..
Was it Q-man who stated: Your freedom ends where another's begins. So as I said Tlaloc, I need a more realistic solution from you. A solution that works within the framework of free speech without plunging us into a Brave New World.
Read my other posts.
I did not say that free speech should not be limited, I said it should not be limited BY CONTENT ALONE.
And those cases of "bad usage of free speech" that you posted above are already covered in the limitations I stated before:
In my ideal imaginary world, freedom of speech should be limited not by content per se but by the willingness of the receiver to hear your message.
So, you should be allowed to say anything racist, violent or hateful in nature, but not to people that you KNOW will be offended or disturbed by it or that do not want to hear such things for whatever reason.
And...
And, yes, I implicitly assumed that if your information constitutes a real danger for anyone, then you should not be allowed to spread it.
So yelling "OMG, THERE IS A BOMB!!!" in the middle of a heavily crowded place when there is no real bomb around, that should be forbidden.
Same for convincing people to threaten the rights of anyone else.
So:
Screaming "fire" in a full theatre = creating immediate danger = forbidden
Yelling a call to prayer at 4 am = violation of the other people's right not to be bothered by your message = forbidden (cause you can't decide to become temporarily deaf)
Writing 'dead niggers storage' = violation of other people's right not to be bothered by your message = forbidden (cause the neighborhood can't just "pretend it's not there")
But:
Printing articles/books that one race/religion/ideology is inferior/superior to some/all others = not forbidden (cause you can avoid buying it if you dislike it)
Running a talk show about how much everyone should feel disgust for kfr/jews/blacks/italians/asians = not forbidden (cause you can change channel if you dislike it)
Topic: How far should free speech go?