Nearly every western nation has statutory laws in place against hate speech. For example, in 1981 and 1995 Belgium passed its Anti-Racism Law and its Holocaust Denial Law respectfully. Brazil cracked down on several hate-related websites in 2006 as part of its 1988 Constitution which bans race-related hate speech. Similarly, France prohibits public and private communication which is defamatory or incites discrimination, hatred, or violence. Germany's Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or violate their human dignity. Having learned from mainly European history and ongoing social friction, Western nations take their hate laws quite seriously.
In the end, the debate over Section 13 is healthy and evolving. The law must strike a balance between preventing the abuse of the Internet and protecting individual rights to privacy and free speech. In as much we all believe in absolute freedom, our freedom is in reality protected by laws and social safeguards that help shield us against harm from each other and from civil disobedience. Without guiding posts or red lines that protect us against hateful behaviour, inequity would result leading to a loss of freedom and tolerance for all.
In the end, what the Jews think is irrelevant. Pace Avi and the rest who yet cling to their tattered security blanket as it disintegrates before their very eyes, state censorship doesn't work in the way proponents think it will and want it to; is far more of a danger to a free, open society than the "hate" is; and now's a terrible time to push for it because censorship (a.k.a. stopping "blasphemy") is the centerpiece of an OIC scheme to make us all shut up about Islam, forever.
Period. End of story.