[mowenz]

The test to outlaw something should not be because it hurts someone. Just because you know some people will drive, or drive drunk, and this will kill people, does not mean you should ban driving, or alcohol.

Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.

[tmalsburg2]

Driving has clear benefits for the individual and society. Accidents are merely an unintended side-effect. In contrast to that, the purpose of hate speech is by definition to hurt people.

[mowenz]

The point was that both are unintended consequences of things which generally help people. If we could have free speech, or roads, with no bad side effects we'd have them.

Once you eliminate speech just because you disagree with it, you begin the process of allowing the most powerful to determine that criteria for their own benefit.

[tmalsburg2]

The goal of the law under discussion is not to eliminate any form of speech or even contrarian speech. This law is just about speech that is designed to hurt people.

[mowenz]

By that criteria, everything from schoolyard insults to poems insulting Trump could be made illegal.

I know you don't want to be insulted, or let other people be insulted, but it's a dangerous responisbility to give to government to make them arbiter of what speech is acceptable.