And the reason why we don't have resident haters on every corner in the U.S. is because we have state prosecutors who don't look the other way...
Holocaust revisonism, hate speech, and so on are left untouched in Croatia because its prosecutors either can't or don't want to do anything about them. Just considering that even Croatia's ex-president, himself a historian, openly indulged in Holocaust revisionism (for which he later publicly apologized to Israel, I am sure not all on his own) puts this in its proper perspective.
Croatian nationalists have apparently been very successful in pulling the wool over some people's eyes, and found some gullable believers from unsuspected editorial boards who prefer to use Croatian figures, which minimize, marginalize and trivialize Holocaust, while paying lip service to its victims.
Thoughts and beliefs cannot be regulated. Speech, writing, publishing, etc. are actually acts, and some are protected, while others are not. There is such a concept as verbal assault that is not followed by other acts that is also not protected by the First Amendment. Defamation and libel are not physical acts, but they are unprotected speech because they constitute illegal acts in themselves. A definition of the word "act" makes it very clear that any speech can be construed as an act.
True. However, in this country such sophisms have mostly been used in civil, not criminal, cases.
The exhibit sparked a small demonstration led by Mladen Schwartz, a Croatian nationalist born to Jewish parents. The motto of the gathering was “Jews out of Croatia.”
Please give me an example of an American being successfully prosecuted for demanding "Jews (or blacks , Mexicans, Canadians, etc.) out of America." Such speech is absolutely protected by the 1st. (Unless he left the gathering and attacked a member of the group.)
It's actually the type of speech the 1st was intended to protect, unlike its modern application to nude dancing, etc. If you disagree with this speech, the appropriate response is not prosecution. Show why the speaker is wrong and convince others to ignore him.
Use your freedom of speech.
Using your definition, almost any speech could be banned as an act rather than speech. Somebody somewhere is likely to be offended by almost anything you might say and take it as an act against him or his group.