If it’s possible to possess illegal words, then yes, we’ve abandoned the presumption of innocence. What moral failing is the possessor of illegal words guilty of?
That’s a strawman. There’s no illegal words in hate speech laws like the one in question. There are illegal intents, illegal publications, etc. - those already exist. To go back to my previous example: “fire” isn’t an illegal word. But shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre (where there is no fire) is an illegal action intended to cause harm.
Thinking genocidal thoughts, even saying genocidal ideas aloud, all are ok under most western hate speech laws. The line is usually in publishing or broadcasting genocidal ideas.
Hate speech laws are on a slope, and at the bottom is of that slope is authoritarian thought police territory, for sure, but it doesn't seem that slippery a slope from where i’m standing.
The law here states that if you possess the hate speech the assumption is that you intend to publish or broadcast it. You have to prove that you don't (by being an academic or law enforcement for instance). This is an attempt to keep people from engaging with crimethink, not broadcasting it.
Is there something about text that advocates for genocide that is worth engaging with? I’m not convinced there is. This is paradox of tolerance territory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance).
Thinking genocidal thoughts, even saying genocidal ideas aloud, all are ok under most western hate speech laws. The line is usually in publishing or broadcasting genocidal ideas.
Hate speech laws are on a slope, and at the bottom is of that slope is authoritarian thought police territory, for sure, but it doesn't seem that slippery a slope from where i’m standing.