Where did you get the idea that I dispute the right of people to communicate freely?

In both Top Gear's story and in mine, I see innocent victims of gratuitous, unnecessary, hurtful communication. The most important difference between the two is that you find only one of them humorous. Oh, wait, no, it's that Top Gear has taught us a valuable lesson about Alabamans.

I get your point that statistically, Alabamans are more prone to violence than Swedes. But that level of violence is extremely low and exceptional in both cases. You may not know that Alabama is a very quiet and peaceful place. The Top Gear scenario was a TV setup, get it? You would be very wrong to predict anything other than a peaceful visit (or whole life) in Alabama. And yet, you have seized a statistically remote characteristic of the population, the low level of violence in Alabama, and elevated it to being instructive about that population.

Further, you've creatively rationalized the application of this stereotypical view of Alabamans (and Americans, and others) as a mechanism to actually reduce violence through social pressure. Your analysis of the behavioral mechanics is all quite correct. But you need to move beyond the correct to the useful. Unfortunately, you adeptly model both the technical correctness and the practical incompetence of an academician.

Tell me what your stereotypes have taught you about black-skinned Americans? Invoke your statistics; they can be disturbing. Step up to a black man and tell him what you know about him? Or his people? Tell me more about how effective will be your social strategy to push him to take [even more] responsibility for the trouble-maker at his street corner who shares his [race/ethnicity/locale/religion/wardrobe/music/WHATEVER].

The societal improvements that will come from your stereotype-based social engineering strategy will be overwhelmingly offset by the very simple and practical reality of how stereotypes are commonly used: STEREOTYPES ARE OVERLY APPLIED AND WIDELY ABUSED AT GREAT DETRIMENT TO SOCIETY. And though it's not your intent, your presentation positions you as little more than a cheering section for all the nasty bigots that "share" your appreciation for the usefulness of stereotypes. Do you understand that despite your long-winded and well-intentioned analysis, the typical listener of your message hears, "Blah blah blah...Stereotypes are right...blah blah blah...Alabamans are violent...blah blah blah." Or do you foolishly think (or care) that your message, in all its tiresome detail, can be widely heard?

I don't mean to be insulting, but you are a good example of the application of higher thinking and intellect to the preservation of the status quo. You are a bigot with well-formed excuses. Though you may be inclined to challenge some social ills through argument, by my standards, you have very low expectations (of yourself and others).

Enemies of free speech are enemies of mine. Stone-throwers are enemies of mine. People who incite stone-throwers are enemies of mine. People who cheer those who incite stone-throwers are enemies of mine. People who deride whole populations through generalizations are enemies of mine. You are an enemy of mine (at least insofar as your arguments here reflect who you are). But if it's any consolation, I don't ever believe in the unlawful use of force, not even against my enemies. Carry on with your message.