"men to insult and threaten other people"

If anybody feels insulted by speech, they need to grow up, grow a thicker skin. Don't go running to governments or corporations to create laws to defend their feelings. You sneaked in "threaten" to broaden your scope for your speech argument, physical attacks are already illegal.

"because it is physically possible to hold some opinion it must be as correct as any other opinion"

Again, regarding what is "correct", just for demonstration, I might agree or not agree or don't give a flying fuck and not be interested in your discussion at all. That does not and should not take your or my right away of saying it. If your opinion stands the test of time, then evolution will eventually show you are correct, and same applies to anybody else.

"Few people in power", I was speaking relatively, compared to population of a country.

Regarding "racial arguments", you used "argument" not physical attack, in which case you don't have any right to stop them in delivering such argument.

I am so glad that I migrated to this country where freedom of speech is still defended vehemently.

Look, you can't both have a notion of "standing the test of time" and think all opinions are equal: passing a test by necessity defines a preferred opinion.

Your stated position is a logical contradiction: good job.

You've asserted several times that 'djanago' believes that "all opinions are equal" and that "all opinions are as correct as any other opinion", but I'd be willing to bet that he does not. More likely, he believes something closer to "the government should not be in the business of censoring opinions" and "people have a right to speak their opinion even if that opinion is unpopular and wrong".

If phrased this way, do you still disagree?

To my knowledge, credible threats are not allowed speech..

So you accept the notion of allowed speech, but maybe disagree on where the line goes. That's fine, and something different from the people complaining that nazis should be allowed to preach about the destruction of the negro because after all "that's just an opinion".

Credible or actual harm is useable as a legal standard. If you wanted to outlaw "hate speech" what standard could be used to do that? How could you prevent abuse of those laws in order to suppress unpopular or otherwise subversive speech?

In other words, it might sound like a good idea, but there's absolutely no way to prevent a legal standard that does not stem from actual or credible harm from being abused by the powerful to suppress the powerless.

The US government doesn’t need hate speech laws to abuse & suppress unpopular speech, the just use national security laws:

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encycloped...

a "True Threat" is not deemed a free speech violation because one is not preventing speech, but are preventing action.

a "True Threat" is a threat of ACTION not a speech.

I.e. if a person is in their garage, they have bomb making materials all around them, and make a threat to bomb a location at a specific time, date, they have now made a threat of ACTION thus it becomes an ACTIONABLE item for law enforcement

This is often used by people that advocate for censorship as a "limit on free speech" but it is not, it is a limit on actions, we have always had limits on actions