He may be a scumbag, but he’s entitled to sing his opinions, at least, so long as he stops short of actual incitement to violence. A reggae singer who calls himself “Sizzla” has been stopped from performing in Paris because of his evidently hateful lyrics calling for violent attacks on gay people. In France his concerts were cancelled (according to the BBC) “because of the risk of public disorder,” while in Britain concerts have been cancelled because of public pressure organized by Outrage. The outcomes may be the same, but how they are arrived at matters: assuming that the media descriptions are accurate, the latter is justified, the former is not. It’s disturbing that so many seek to silence expressions of vile and disgusting opinions, rather than, say, to refute them.
P.S. I know that some will deny that incitement to violence is in any way criminal, and will cite the fact that “even” Murray Rothbard may have thought that, but I’m not convinced. Chanting “Kill the Niggers” in front of the home of a black family who are then dragged out and hanged is clearly criminal involvement in an act of violence; it’s not a legitimate exercise of “free speech” to instruct others to go and kill innocent people, or to pay them to do so, or to whip them into a frenzy that erupts in violence. There is a difference between incitment and expressing the opinion that that ought to happen; the former is evil and criminal and the latter is merely evil.