I think a common failure (intentional or not) in discussing free speech is isolating free speech absolutism from the sort of free speech that we'd be happy to accept in a liberal, open society.
Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully recognize both the inciter and the mob and assign blame commensurately. Most of us, I think, would not want to live in a society where inciting panic or violence is at least morally neutral. If that's the case and we think that the laws should reflect such a judgement, then it follows that open societies must (counterintuitively) place restrictions on free speech.[1]
Geoff makes good points, and he uses good sources to advance those points. But we should not think that Paine or Mill would be comfortable with the absolutist rhetoric that they get applied popularly to today.
[1]: Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance."
Speaking practically and from the absolutist perspective, there should be no legal penalty for inciting others to violence. However, I think that (nearly) all of us recognize the importance of motive in cases -- we rightfully recognize both the inciter and the mob and assign blame commensurately. Most of us, I think, would not want to live in a society where inciting panic or violence is at least morally neutral. If that's the case and we think that the laws should reflect such a judgement, then it follows that open societies must (counterintuitively) place restrictions on free speech.[1]
Geoff makes good points, and he uses good sources to advance those points. But we should not think that Paine or Mill would be comfortable with the absolutist rhetoric that they get applied popularly to today.
[1]: Karl Popper called this the "Paradox of Tolerance."