[jostiniane]

> government should not intervene

when the government shouldn't intervene? when there's hate speech against Muslims or when the Muslims retaliate?

[mrkeen]

I think the answer is more or less there in your question:

Speech? Do it freely.

Retaliation? Go to jail.

Of course there are huge caveats to these.

For instance, doxing is speech which I don't think should be protected ("Joe was was a member of the Nazi party and he lives at this address"). There's no debate or formulation of ideas in it. But if you said "All former Nazi party members should be deported". It's hateful but I think it should be protected: it's political, it's abstract, it can be debated.

[jostiniane]

So it started by bunch of losers seeking fame in insulting others.

I understand the stupidity in today's internet is out of proportions, but Muslims themselves burn Quoran to dispose of it. The sole intention of the losers here is to insult a large group of people. The retaliation is coming in several forms including the call to bankrupt such miningless countries and that's a good thing. The exact reason why Denmark and Sweden are banning acts of hate speech against Muslims.

Now you are writing that (selective) hate speech should be free and protected and all retaliations should be banned.. which is funny because it's not how the world works and you don't get to dictate the rules.