[rory]

Those all sound like pretty reasonable caveats that clearly don't, in their spirit, stifle discussion. Could they be twisted by someone who doesn't actually believe in the spirit of this declaration? Sure, but it's not like the declaration itself is a legal document, so it doesn't make sense to overly lawyer the precise language.

The "violates the law" thing is a different story, but the South African law you linked to has no parallel in the United States, so I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt until such law exists.

[Fricken]

They all sound to me like reasonable caveats except the last one; which is vague and subjective enough to cover just about anything they don't like.

[rory]

Hm yeah, that last catchall slipped by my read. Whatever that's meant to refer to, it should have been enumerated specifically. It sounds like a catchall added to appease the "moderate" supporters of freedom of expression.