Hotair linked to an article by Professor Williams that contains one of the most succinct and accurate descriptions of natural rights in recent memory
"True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference."
Adding to the idea that exercising my right must cause no harm to another, this idea of others being free from obligation is another critical component.
My son stumbled across the stormfront site yesterday through a Google search result on "Why are." He was shocked, and sent me the link saying "Look at theses racist f*cks, is this legal?" I didn't follow the link. I know who they are, and frankly don't care to give them the traffic. I told him that freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone has to listen. That's it. No obligation on my part. Except non-interference. They are free to say what they wish, and associate with others who feel the same way. It wasn't too long ago that racism was accepted in polite society. We as a society have moved on because people could freely share new ideas about what should be. The government didn't like those new ideas at first. So while I find the ideas of those "racist f*cks" anachronistic and repugnant, more repugnant would be to give government the power to decide what ideas cannot be shared.