Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

I mentioned Voltaire because I agree with the quote and believe it frames my argument better than I ever could. Hate Speech Laws were defined at the beginning of the debate, and in that definition was one of hate speech i. e. "Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification. " It is impossible to make laws about something that hasn"t been defined! Remember, the debate was whether "hate speech laws" were justified, not hate speech. I have already explained about threats and how the possibility of violence should remain illegal. It is (and should be according to me) also illegal to publish direct lies about an individual, otherwise our freedom of opinion would be pointless. As I have said, there is a difference between an opinion and information. If I cried "fire" in a theatre and someone died trying to get out, that would be a lie. If I shouted "someone should set fire to this theatre" notice I am not threatening to do so, that should be allowed, because that is my opinion. "God hates f@gs" is an instance of defamation because it appeals to the utmost authority" It is not "appealing" to the authourity, it is making an absurd statement about what the speaker believes to be true, thus an opinion. If they had tried to back it up with facts, and those were falsifiable, then it would be illegal, but opinions, no matter how pathetically stupid, should be legal. Many opinions appeal to our emotions, that is what opinions are about. Whether you personally would like to kill the cartoonist or rocker is of no consequence. My opponent goes on to mention group dynamics, which in humans are unfortunate " and unpreventable. It is often the case, in fact, where the issue goes the other way round. Why couldn"t "I hate racists" be hate crime? It is an unfortunate truth that the law is not going to change group opinion " freedom of expression will do that. 1 & 2. Defamation is part of hate speech, and I don"t think it should be illegal if it is not threatening. Why should it? It"s an opinion, and we all have different opinions. When did I claim that I thought defamation should be illegal if it is an opinion? 3. Slavery, at least in what might be called it"s more mild forms (some say that everyone under a dictatorship is a slave for obvious reasons) is actually a similar issue to freedom of speech " in both cases, freedoms of individuals are being taken away. I am glad my opponent brought this up, because in order for slavery to go forward, government consent is necessary " the consent that those individuals held as slaves have less rights than the rest of the individuals in the society (otherwise they would be equal individuals and master gets the chop) - just like people with the "wrong" opinions under hate speech. There is no anti " heroism in slavery, by the way, if that is what my opponent was referring to. 4. I defined freedom of speech at the beginning, and it included only Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification" not lies or threats. Many things, as I have said, give many people negative images. Sometimes, as with my comments on Stalin or the witch burners (note: a group) this is by what I think is my and my opponent"s similar moral compasses good, sometimes it is bad. It is impossible for the gov"t to decide without being biased, and bias can turn against you. I could say "God hates witch " burners," would I be persecuted for that? But I don"t think I shall respond here because my opponent is once more relying on her introduced version of "free speech laws". Opinions always annoy someone, that is why we have opinions, otherwise there would just be facts. Yes, the opinion that "god hates f@gs" is horrible, yes it is probably not even intended to change anyone"s mind, but neither is the sight of a punk rocker with a spiky haircut and metal all over his body " not a bad thing, by the way " where do we go from there? Should all media be censored because it might annoy someone? My opponent has introduced a new definition of hate speech, and I regret that this has become a larger topic in a debate that I had hoped would be about the topic I had determined previously. I am accused of putting up strawmen but it seems to me that my opponent has done this consistently throughout her debate. I do thank my opponent, however, for an excellent debate and hope to debate her again in future. Long live freedom of expression.