| >Any restrictions at all rapidly escalate into enormous restrictions [...] This is a slippery slope argument and it is as weak as any. Hate speech is that speech which has historically been used to 'justify' vast amounts of violence against mostly innocent people. More accurately, it is speech that is used to promote emotions which cause people to conveniently accept justifications of violence that overlook the individuality of a person. The speech that does this is designed to do it. And the consequences of engaging in such thinking can be almost arbitrarily bad. The first amendment was written before WW2. It was written before Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, radio, television, internet, and modern journalism. It was also written by people with a questionable understanding of modern liberalism and to appease people with a far worse understanding of liberalism. The first amendment is not sacred. Even if you can find fault in every alternative, this does nothing to absolve the faults already within it. > the moment you say that sort of preaching isn't allowed anymore you run into the question of people's right to practice religion Clearly christianity is outlawed in the US because stoning people (and by extension, homosexuals) is illegal. All that's happened here is that you're not allowed to grant yourself arbitrary rights by claiming they are 'religious.' All societies restrict the authority of religion. Either through secular principles such as this, or through religious persecution committed by another religion. >I am struggling to think of cases where someone stood up and announced "kill those people" and it actually happened This is laughable. Your ignorance isn't a argument. "I can't find any examples of something I didn't bother to look for examples of." |