There's a problem here. A gap that no one has found a really good way to close.
What if you have a respected (at least among her peers) religious leader who denounces gays/blacks/athiests/men as abominations who have no right to live and thus should be euthanized for their our moral protection. What do you do when her followers and start murdering people. Does she bear any blame for their actions even though she never ordered that any of the people actually specifically be murdered?
That's the gap of legal responsibility that hate speech laws attempt to address. I do not believe that the "post-traumatic stress syndrome" aspect is actually a compelling reason for hate speech laws. It's the promotion of violence against individuals or groups that is the singular important point. Governments have a vested interest in preventing the development of cycles of violence.
no subject
What if you have a respected (at least among her peers) religious leader who denounces gays/blacks/athiests/men as abominations who have no right to live and thus should be euthanized for their our moral protection. What do you do when her followers and start murdering people. Does she bear any blame for their actions even though she never ordered that any of the people actually specifically be murdered?
That's the gap of legal responsibility that hate speech laws attempt to address. I do not believe that the "post-traumatic stress syndrome" aspect is actually a compelling reason for hate speech laws. It's the promotion of violence against individuals or groups that is the singular important point. Governments have a vested interest in preventing the development of cycles of violence.