Does Free Speech include incitement to violence?

Steve Chapman is attacking Tony Blair's policy of expelling Muslim Clerics who preach violence against Britons from the country. Predicable drivel, and then I hit this line:

The history of freedom of speech, in fact, is mainly the story of learning to tolerate statements that have the potential to cause real harm.

Hmm. Does that include shouting Fire! in a crowded building? Does it mean inciting revolution and violent overthrow of the government? Do we really want another Civil War? Do we want fear and loathing of peaceful American Muslims because of the "Great Satan" rhetoric?

The purpose of free speech is to encourage debate and exchange of views, not violence, hatred and murder. The ACLU's famous defense of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Illinois seems to be some kind of sacred moment for the left, but it has always seemed wrongheaded to me. The marching wasn't just speech, it was a threat, like burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family. It was also pointless. There was no reason that they had to march in an area settled by a lot of Holocaust survivors other than the insult to these people.

In the first place, I'm not particularly impressed by marching, burning things, or carrying signs as a form of debate. It's more like skywriting. Where's the exchange? I've been amused in the past by people who express outrage that they organized a big demonstration, and it didn't change the president's policy. Where do they get the idea that because a few thousand people attend a rally, their opinion is binding on the government? Add to that the fact that a lot of the same people are beating the drum for laws against hate speech. Somehow, I don't think they'd apply them to Muslim clerics urging this twisted idea of jihad.

Is that really what the First Amendment means? I sure hope not, because it will mean the galvanizing of more young Muslims to commit terrorism, more deaths and a lot of trouble for Muslims who are entirely innocent and peaceful.