Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

My opponent begins by taking my quote about Voltaire out of context - I said he was persecuted against because of what he said, thus making him a heroine of the ideals of freedom of opinion and, by extension, of speech on the opinion. My opponent has introduced a new definition of hate speech, however hate speech has already been defined at the beginning of the debate. This is important because my opponent mentions "the inciting of violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group" in her definition, and it is not included in mine. Without hate speech laws, an individual may still sue if they are threatened by another's remarks. My opponent then gives two examples of hate speech by an organization of about 40 in the American South. What they said is despicable, but I have already shown why they have a right to say it. "I would like to ask: why should we prohibit defamatory statements and threats against individuals but not against groups?" My opponent repeats the term threats - I repeat, direct threats such as "Eric is homosexual, I am going to beat him up because of this" are already properly illegal. However, defamatory statements against groups or even public individuals such as politicians (if they are not lies) are protected by freedom of speech because they are often confused with statements of opinion. I detest this, but "god hates f@gs" is a statement of opinion, whether you agree with it or not. What if I said something you probably agree with, "Stephen Harper is ruining my country" and was arrested for this? Surely being arrested for that would be compromising our freedom of speech? How do you discriminate without being biased? Now my opponent makes the classic confusion of result and cause. Anybody who is in a group that fosters what is ill defined as hate speech, or who does it him/herself, is already biased against that person. Would it make a difference with helping a person with a different baseball jersey if one was at the stadium watching the game or at home? I doubt it. But what my opponent is trying to say is that we are affected by each other's opinions, including negative ones. This is true, but it isn't going to change by banning hate speech, people would still make ethnic jokes behind closed doors, there would still be resentment against immigrants in the US and elsewhere. As I mentioned before, it is better that these opinions be out in the open and properly debated against than behind closed doors. Are you going to arrest every person who catcalls at the opposing side in a hockey game? This is absurd. REBUTTALS 1. And I will respond again, freedom of speech means freedom of opinion, and I will defend that to the end. 2. Hate speech is ill defined, as I mentioned previously. How do you differ hate from opinion? Who is it right to hate? Am I allowed to hate Stalin and say that he was an evil b******* because he killed millions of his own people? And what words do I have to use to make it hate? Am I allowed to say that the Nazis were a bunch of malicious #@$(*#$#@!&(#$*@! ? you get the picture. "the purpose of the court is to interpret laws." Do I want a court deciding what is opinion and what is "hate"? Do I want the courts to be able to decide which opinions are "moral" and which are not? How fascist do we get here? 3. I thought this one was self explanatory - more people are likely to want to be part of organizations that are given some kind of seriousness and anti - heroism by being "on the run" . This is why Johnny Cash or the Se* Pistols were so popular. By a similar ilk, banned books inevitably become very popular. 4. I don't see where my opponent has shown that hate speech is well defined. I repeat, where does something become "hate" and not an opinion? Who is it right to "hate"? Is impassioned argument now banned because it might be "hate"? 5. They evidently are - as my opponent has proven. She claims that "god hates f@gs" is hate speech. I agree, it is (by my moral compass) hateful speech, but it is also an opinion. It's a despicable, lewd, nasty, ridiculous, absurd, unbacked opinion (notice my own "hate speech") but it is an opinion that "god hates f@gs". And it should be, as I have said before, heavily debated. I challenge my opponent to give me one case where hate speech is not either expressing an opinion (or by extension an opinion) or a threat, the second already being illegal. "Hate speech instils fear in those who are victimized by it (so is therefore threatening), and as studies have shown, the outcomes of negative perceptions validate this fear. Defamation of a group is no different than defamation against an individual. For this reason, I affirm the resolution that hate speech laws are a good idea." Defamation against a group is very different from defamation against an individual. Groups are collections of individuals, and as with religion often interchangeable ones. Would it be defamation to say that I hate the witch - burners of the middle ages (and by the way government of the future with hate speech laws, I do) They aren't even around any more! I'm still hating a group though. But my opponent has taken me out of context here - I only differed between individuals and groups because it very difficult for groups to be directly, literally threatened. It can be done, such as it was against the Tutsis, for instance, in Rwanda, and the International Courts should have been involved there, but otherwise it doesn't happen or has been confused with a statement of controversial and probably provocative opinion. It is easy to place the possibility of future violence upon an individual, and that, I retain, should be illegal. I fear that my opponent has looked for a way out without dealing with the central question - yes there are by both of our moral compasses "bad people out there" who say nasty things but remember, some of them are in government and liable to twist things to their own ends.