How to remove freedom of speech in two easy steps

Here you go, the quickest post ever:

How to remove freedom of speech in a Western Democracy in two easy steps:

1. Out law hate speech;
2. Categorise any disagreement with a section of society as hate speech towards that class of people.

There you go, easiest thing in the world. You see step one is easy because everyone hates hate speech. That is understandable. Hate stirs up strife and potential violence and all sorts of nasty things that pretty much everyone thinks of as bad.

Step two is all the more cunning. Basically one just has to associate their views so strongly with themselves so as to basically make that view a part of their character.

Eg. I have OCD, that means I'm obsessive about hygine. It isn't my fault, I remember having it for as long as I have memory. It is just a normal part of my personality. Some people say it is strange but that is just because it is different to what they are used to. It just means I like things clean and I can't stand the idea of bins only being taken out once a fortnight...
Therefore anyone who thinks the bins be taken out once a fortnight, is an OCD hater, and therefore must be convicted of a hate crime. They are just using their claim of cost savings to cover up their clear hatred for people who have OCD. They are trying to oppress people with OCD because we NEED a clean environment, therefore any of these OCD bigots should be arrested for their prejudice and brought before the courts.

An opinion is an opinion, if someone disagrees with it, then they disagree with it. Sure there are some dangerous opinions out there. But isn't it just as dangerous to start moderating what opinions people are allowed to have? Take the following example:

a) 'asians are bad people' is clearly racist;
b) 'high levels of immigration is damaging to the economic and social coherency of a country' some would call that racist, others would call it an observation of the impact of a particular policy;
c) 'so called 'houour killings' are abhorent and should be condemed throughout society' many would agree with that statement, but in the context that the majority of what is considered 'honour killings' have been performed by British Muslims, some could call that racist too.

The difficulty is, when you start drawing lines in the grey areas what you end up doing is moderating who and what you can criticise. I'm not sure how wise that is, because if there is someone deciding what you can criticise and what you can't that isn't free speech, that is the total opposite.

I'm still against anything that advocates the use of violence in pursuit of a cause (outside the Queen's peace), but one must be very careful with any legislation that puts into the hands of officials the job of moderating what an acceptable opinion is. The fact is people with lunatic opinions are quite good at repelling people from their cause because.... well they have lunatic opinions, which means the only causes that would really be effected are those in grey areas, that is areas of debate where people don't agree with what is the right opinion/course of action, in other words, the exact circumstances where discussion is needed.