Yesterday’s Huffpost carried an article by Christopher Mathias: “Exposed: Dallas Humber, Narrator Of Neo-Nazi ‘Terrorgram,’ Promoter of Mass Shootings.” It describes the extensive use of the internet by this deranged woman and other neo-nazis to report, praise, and inspire racial conflict and murder. These people have created what Mathias aptly calls a “hagiology” of mass-shooters who are actually hailed as “saints.”

It seems that very few legal actions can be taken against these perverts. Their online activity is clandestine, or stops just short of actionable incitement to violence, and the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech is interpreted as protecting even criminals like these.

The First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” is not accompanied by any indication of what is meant by “freedom of speech.” This has led to extension of the protection speech beyond what good sense could imagine, to include pornography, out-and-out lies, blatant grifting, gross ignorance, verbal assaults, incitements to violence, and all but the most demented utterances of racism and misogyny. Naive understanding of freedom of speech has always been a problem, but this problem, like so many others, has been exacerbated and made more obvious by the evolution of the internet.

Of course, the argument is usually made that any attempt to limit speech will have a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech. This may be. But utter failure to limit the use of speech denies the potentially destructive power of words. Verbal aggression can be as violent as physical aggression, even though it is more easily disguised. Lies can be dangerous. Misinformation can be dangerous. The magical rhetoric of advertising can be dangerous. Incitement to religious or political frenzy can be dangerous.

I can think of no way to limit speech without risking deleterious side effects. But I believe it should be possible to hold people responsible for the consequences of their speech. This would require a more extensive definition of fraud and a more honest and sensitive understanding of the varieties of violence. Yes, any constraint on speech runs the risk of the “chilling effect.” But it has been clear and is becoming clearer that some constraint is required, since citizens insist on freedom of speech without accepting the duties of self-restraint that accompany this right.