[slg]

Everyone is free to their own opinions. Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations. We already apply this to other forms of restriction on speech like defamation. Often defamation will require negligence to harm or intent to harm. Someone who is factually incorrect through an honest mistake generally isn't considered to have committed defamation. I don't know why we are okay trying to ascertain the motive behind speech in one instance and not another.

[worik]

> Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations

Really? That requires mind reading.

Do you mean "...depending on their effects"?

[slg]

We do this with plenty of crimes. Murdering your spouse to collect their life insurance policy is punished harsher than murdering your spouse after you come home to find them having an affair. Motivations and intent matter.

[worik]

It is the same crime. Motivation does not count to guilt.

Intent does, but intent is different from motivation. Do I need to explain that?

[slg]

That was one example of the law no acting based purely on result. If you want specifically an example of motivation what about killing in self defense? That is a motivation and not an intent. It can also be what decides guilt or innocence.

[guelo]

American defamation laws are neutered compared to other western countries because of the 1st amendment.