As a general rule, ethics should be translated into law. If you believe something is ethically compelled, then why not force people to do it? If you're not willing to force people to do something, then in what sense are you saying it's ethically wrong as opposed to merely not to your taste?
Let's take rape and the oppression of women in Islamic countries, for example. I'm completely uninterested in people who fiddle around with the Koran and try to prove that Islam is not misogynist. I really don't give a shit one way or the other what Muslims think their imaginary friend thinks. I will be convinced that Islam supports the rights of women when they make and vigorously enforce laws against sexual and physical assault against women. Until then any talk about the rights of women in Islam is at best just so much bullshit and at worst contemptible hypocrisy.
Contrawise, if you think abortion is wrong, you should try to make it illegal. Period. End of story. If you don't want to make abortion illegal, then why talk about how abortion is some sort "tragedy" or social loss? If it's just that abortion is not to your taste, then just shut the fuck up (metaphorically speaking) and don't have one; it's none of your goddamn business whether a woman has an abortion. (Actually, talking about how abortion is a tragedy is an end-run around the law mechanisms, attempting to use force in the form of social ostracism to replace the courts and formal legal mechanisms.)
This pretty much goes for all our ethical intuitions. The best we can do with our law is make it match our ethical intuitions; and the only thing that separates our ethical intuitions from our tastes and preferences is our willingness to use force. I don't intend a superficial translation of ethics to law: there are various levels of abstraction and complicated considerations necessary to most effectively map our ethical intuitions to law. But at the end of the day, law must follow and reflect our ethical intuitions, and some belief is an ethical intuition if and only if one desires it be mapped into law.
There's one glaring exception, though: freedom of speech. Even though our ethical intuition may hold that certain kinds of speech are really abhorrent and ethically objectionable, we have to permit all speech. And this principle goes beyond merely the tolerance of other people's abhorrent speech to permit our own abhorrent speech. If you want to speak merely for the pleasure of hearing your own voice, you can talk in private.
Law and law enforcement is the socialization of the individual, unilateral use of force. In order to socialize the use of force, though, there has to be a non-coercive mechanism at some level to actually perform the socialization. We cannot decide as a society how well our law matches our ethical intuitions unless we can communicate those ethical intuitions to each other, especially when those intuitions contradict present law. Without near-absolute freedom of speech, the law cannot change. What becomes illegal would become unspeakable.
So the way to manage speech is "upside down" compared with how we use speech to manage actions. When managing speech, we must have the freedom to say whatever we please, and criticize what anyone else says without implying we wish to make that speech illegal. Ethical criticism of an action however, always entails that the speaker, explicitly or covertly, advocates making that action illegal.