(July 1, 2015 at 10:09 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I'm not really saying you can't insult people or hate on them, but inciting violence trough hatred should be illegal. If I call for killing the jews, I am telling people to kill other people because of their race, and chances are some morons will believe my rhetoric and do it - This is disturbing to public order, and therefore shouldn't be something we allow under the pretence of "freedom". As for hate, sure hate anyone you want, you can come out as racist sexist bigot that it helps the rest of us - But rest assured, you are responsible for the consequences of going out showing your swastika tattoo. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that you can drop a burning cigarette on the ground but can't be blamed for the fire because you didn't really "start it". Even in your premises, some degree of hate speech will always be a crime - I.e. When someone directly calls for violence ATM or something like that, because even if nothing happens we're better off not taking chances, and it is justified.
Punishing someone for their viewpoint is profoundly antidemocratic; requiring them to remain silent on said views is in itself a punishment. What if the restriction on speech was -- instead of racial hatred, which is I gather your point -- what if it restricted your ability to speak out on your atheism? Because that too is offensive to many people (rightly or wrongly).
A free country has many freedoms, but one does not have the right to be free of offense. And rather than prosecute speakers who urge violence, as Tiberius notes, 'tis better to prosecute the violent themselves. After all, they made the decision to act on the words.
Silencing hateful views doesn't lead to eliminating those views, it leads to driving them underground where they can grow and fester. Both in the abstract and pragmatic spheres, hate-speech laws are counterproductive.
