Post a response to this discussion thread
What you're describing is what Jeremy Bentham called the "fallacy of danger." While there is some prospect that a hate-crime law *might* be abused in the ways you posit, again, you have to prove each and every element of the offense, including the hate-crime motivation, beyond a reasonable doubt. And juries are rather better at seeing through perjury than you might think.
And, yet again, you need an ACT. Mere verbal expressions of hatred are not actionable, not prosecutable, not indictable.
See BEAUHARNAIS v. ILLINOIS, which got rid of so-called "group libel" laws, and BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, which made speech punishable only if it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be a direct incitement to imminent lawless action.
Post a response to this discussion thread