[cynwoody]

What I am saying is that pure insults, pornography, blasphemy are not protected speech.

Pure insults are absolutely protected (unless they allege material false facts). Otherwise, we couldn't have political campaigns.

Pornography is protected speech as long as it isn't produced by exploiting minors. If you don't like it, don't view it.

Blasphemy is inherently a religious matter. It is therefore beyond the ken of government, which, in a just society, is required to abstain from involvement in religion.

The American constitution is of course irrelevant here

Nope. The American Constitution is the standard against which other constitutions are measured (and, if found wanting, should be ignored).

That is no excuse for the perpetrators of the massacre who deserved to be shot by the French police. It is simply an advice to anyone who wants less massacres and more justice: work to remove the protected status from speech like that Hebdo Charlie, and everyone will come out ahead.

You are a classic appeaser! As Sir Winston said, "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".

[annalex]

You list the understanding of the Constitution as developed by theliberal judges of the Second half of the 20 century. The legal climate was very different when the Constitution was read as its original intent, and yes, censorship was a fact of life as it should be.

You are a classic appeaser!

In a just society there will be no Charlie Hebdo. Whom did I appease? Myself?