I respectfully disagree with the sentiments conveyed in this article. Allowing free expression, even of racist images or ideas, should not be conflated with an endorsement or "encouragement" thereof. As an analogy, if RT chooses to allow a post on its website that some find offensive, I doubt very seriously that any reasonable person would consider allowing such a post to be an endorsement by RT of the ideas conveyed therein. The problem with banning the expression of images, words, or ideas that could be considered racist is that determining what is racist can be very subject, especially if the perceived racism is subtle. For example, earlier this year, a number of people throughout the US had publicly displayed posters depicting Obama in clown paint like that worn by the Joker in the most recent Batman movie. The intended message was that the image of President Obama as a man of the people was a facade and that he, like past Presidents, is a puppet of Wall Street. Unfortunately, the clown get-up was misconstrued as a depiction of Obama in 'whiteface', which clearly would be racist if this were indeed the intended message. Both the fact that Obama's supporters have been so quick to smear legitimate criticism of the President as motivated by racism and the fact that, unfortunately, a small number of his critics (but certainly not most) do indeed dislike him as President because of race make it very easy for something said about him to be branded "racist" when that may not indeed be the case. Whenever racism is perceived, the solution is more dialogue, not less--open discussion, not censorship. Silencing racists does not end racism, and given the potential for abuse of power by those who would hold the power to censor, "racism" could easily become an excuse to quash dissent, whether such a label is warranted or not. I think the ACLU says it best: "The answer to bad speech is more speech."

The question to be answered about restricting free speach is, who will make the determination if something is "offensive" or not. I find many American commercials degrading to human intelligence and offensive. Many are totally minleading and outright lies. What will the American information CZAR do to stop this evil? Politicians routinely lie on television. Shall their offensive lies be removed from the media? The freedom of information CZARS kind of pick and choose what they determine to be offensive. The reverand Wright can say anything he wants to about caucasion people, but the "INFORMATION CZARS" never see fit to restrict his freedom of speach. America needs to get away from this "POLITICALLY CORRECT ATTITUDE" that is totally biased against caucasian Americans. Most Americans had nothing to do with black people being enslaved in America. Have the big Corporations that got rich off of slave labor pay for their sins. Sin tax them.

Freedom in its basic forms such as freedom of speech entails allowing everyone a right to voice their thoughts and opinions, no matter how silly, outrageous, or mundane. No body how ever has the RIGHT to NOT be Offended. That isn't written and if one caters to the offended than you begin social engineering and the destruction of freedoms. The clause to Freedom of speech is that it wouldn't be used for harm such as inducing panic or a direct threat. Racism is the hate of another race by believing that one race lacks qualities of other races or just discrimination based on race. This comes down to perception of people. Racism should only be a crime when it becomes threatening. Racist speech just reflects the character of the person who speaks it. When a racist speaks, it removes all doubt that he is ignorant. Free Speech is like Morning Birds' songs.