Reply #61: Yes, that's right. That's why we have constitutions. [View All]

[Unvanguard]

If you think constitutional protections are worthless, why is the current status of the First Amendment any better?

In any case, definitions of "hate speech" need not be particularly subjective--we can, and should, make them explicit and narrow. And free speech in the United States already can be limited under some rather "subjective" standards--take obscenity, where the courts have gone out and said that it's a matter of "community standards," whatever those are.

Your argument also fails empirically: other countries have hate speech laws, and while particular cases may be disputable, they simply have not had the catastrophic effects you suggest.