All right, step by step:
Leary's words were neither slanderous nor libelous ... [nor] seditious ...
The point is that "free speech" is not an absolute right, so that particular knee-jerk reaction on your part is wrong-headed. Slander, libel, sedition, etc., constitute well-recognized limits on speech. I did not say that Leary was guilty of any of them; surely you can understand the difference.
[the remarks] were not directed at any discrete individual
So if you slander a large enough group of people, it somehow doesn't count? The famous "blood libel" wasn't really a libel because it was directed at Jews in general, rather than particular Jews? You can't be that stupid.
Leary misrepresents Catholic teaching and insults those who hold them with the intention of dismissing them as lunatics. The point is not whether or not this is a violation of law - it probably isn't. But it is uncivil, and what the Catholic League is proposing is not a legislative response, but an "informal" one. Assuming the people who paid Leary for this "entertainment" have a scrap of decency about them - which they may not - they should apologize for broadcasting this rubbish, withdraw it, and refrain from doing it again. If they don't, pressure in the form of boycotts, media exposure, etc., should be brought to bear.
... chilling of speech by threats of violence against the speaker ...
The point is that this already happens all the time. It is part of the ontology of human social interaction. One would be an idiot to insult, to his face, the mother of a man carrying a knife to his face. One would be wise to practice self-censorship in such a case. This has the positive effect of encouraging civil behavior, and discouraging bullying. It is a mechanism which has functioned since man started living in social groups.
Neither would Leary be likely to make such an ass of himself if he were dealing one-on-one with a muscular practicing Catholic in South Boston. He could reasonably expect a punch in the nose, and he would deserve it. Real men will only take so many "fighting words". The law, for once, is sensible enough to recognize that.
Similarly, it is not acceptable for Jews or Muslims to be insulted in this way, because it is well known that some form of retaliation will be forthcoming, either by a media outcry or by public demonstrations (which have, it must be noted, turned violent on occasion). As a Catholic, I would like to be given equal respect. Since reason and charity have obviously failed, apparently a certain amount of fear is what is needed to induce a similar reluctance.
... physical harm at the hands of a theocratic zealot ...
Rubbish, and hysterical conflation. People's patience with insults is limited, and it is unreasonable to expect them to put up with them past a certain point. It has always been thus, and always will be. If one insists on twisting the tiger's tail, a rational person should expect to get mauled on occasion. That expectation is very useful in preventing the provocation in the first place.
the expression of the Catholic faith is "chilled" by the words of Denis Leary
The point was made in the context of a critique of the position of free speech absolutism. If speech is never to be "chilled" by the self-censorship imposed by the bounds of civil behavior, then neither, by the same Amendment, is religious expression. Knowing that it is acceptable to be ridiculed - as Leary as has done - for one's religious beliefs makes it likely that one to practice self-censorship in the expression of those beliefs, i.e., "chilling" said expression. If "chilling" insulting speech through encouraging self-censorship is impermissible, it is equally wrong to chill religious expression through a similar mechanism.
Moreover, I have cited numerous examples - and could cite many more - which taken together constitute a pattern of persecution. I should think it obvious that persecution has a chilling effect on religious expression.
I can't make it clearer than that, and I'm not amused at your attempts to equate encouraging civil behavior with issuing fatwas, calls for theocracy, etc. So I'll consider the points made, and leave it there.
Actually, it doesn't count. Not in court at any rate. It may count from a social perspective, but you were referring specifically to legal exceptions.
The famous "blood libel" wasn't really a libel because it was directed at Jews in general, rather than particular Jews? You can't be that stupid.
I have to say, this is a prime example of the kind of hysterical overstatement that undercuts the credibility of the currently in vogue claims that Christians are somehow a "persecuted majority." Leary's routine on Comedy Central wasn't a blood libel, for crying out loud, no matter how many horse-hair shirts you put on.
The point is not whether or not this is a violation of law - it probably isn't. But it is uncivil...
Ok. It is legally permissible, but (in your view) uncivil. And you combat incivility by pointing it out and demonstrating civility, agreed?
[I]t is not acceptable for Jews or Muslims to be insulted in this way, because it is well known that some form of retaliation will be forthcoming, either by a media outcry or by public demonstrations (which have, it must be noted, turned violent on occasion). As a Catholic, I would like to be given equal respect.
Well, in the current climate, retaliation in the case of Muslims seems as likely to take the form of physical violence as civil protest.
But since you are now distancing yourself from the advisability of violent retaliation, and are suggesting instead that Catholics are somehow not on an equal footing with Muslims and Jews in their right to engage in civil protest, perhaps you'd like to explain why you believe this to be so. What's to stop you or any other Catholic from countering Leary's words with other speech, with demonstration, or with directed objections? (And remember, you started this discussion with not-so-veiled suggestions that the appropriate response was not civil protest or countering speech, but the chilling of Leary by the prospect of retaliatory force.)
The point was made in the context of a critique of the position of free speech absolutism. If speech is never to be "chilled" by the self-censorship imposed by the bounds of civil behavior, then neither, by the same Amendment, is religious expression. Knowing that it is acceptable to be ridiculed - as Leary as has done - for one's religious beliefs makes it likely that one to practice self-censorship in the expression of those beliefs, i.e., "chilling" said expression. If "chilling" insulting speech through encouraging self-censorship is impermissible, it is equally wrong to chill religious expression through a similar mechanism.
Cutting through this gobblygook, what you seem to be saying is that if Leary is free to speak, then Catholics are free to speak in opposition. No problem. And no violence, express or implied.
Now, what does that point have to do with all this stuff you keep spouting about how speech is properly chilled and kept civil by fear of being physically assaulted?
Moreover, I have cited numerous examples - and could cite many more - which taken together constitute a pattern of persecution. I should think it obvious that persecution has a chilling effect on religious expression.
If Christians are so persecuted, how come the loudest voices in the marketplace are those of Christians who are claiming to be persecuted?
I'm not amused at your attempts to equate encouraging civil behavior with issuing fatwas, calls for theocracy, etc.
My point wasn't to amuse you. It was to disagree with you. I don't find defensible the notion that speech one finds offensive should countered with physical violence.