Law against Racism

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for setting up this debate. I might note, that is the Pro side and the instigator, the BoP lies within my opponent to prove why this law should be passed. I would, however, like to note a few things right off the bat, particularly the falsities and fallacies that my opponent has placed within his argument.He begins by drawing a red herring to the use of racism in the past as to why it should be outlawed in modern times, using an appeal to emotion when noting slavery and segregation that was quite commonplace in America's past. He then notes the very recent Ferguson incident as a reason for the riots without giving the full story on the matter, including the fact that no matter how sloppy the policework was when Wilson first confronted Brown, the fact remains that the most current forensic data proves Brown did attack first, and later charged at Wilson, leading to the cop shooting him and remaining perfectly within the boundaries of his rights as a law enforcer.[1][2] But I digress, as that is a completely separate debate.I would, however, also like to point out the fact that my opponent's argument for making such a law is not sound in the slightest. This is what he believes:1) If X (in this case racism) causes emotional harm or starts fights, then it should be illegal.2) X causes emotional harm and starts fights.∴ X should be illegalThis is not a valid argument in he slightest as the conclusion does not follow through the given premises. If the argument does not follow in all instances of X, then my opponent's argument is not valid. Let us replace X with something like religion. Time and time again in history, a person's religion might be considered "rude, insensitive and hurtful" (Take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church for proof of this) but in no way was it ever made illegal in the USA. The Crusades, modern terrorism, and the Salem Witch hunts have all been been directly caused by religious belief, and yet in America, we have the freedom to practice our religion which, like the Freedom of Speech or Expression (which my opponent is directly attacking with his arguments), is protected by the 1st Amendment in the Constitution.[3] In fact, my opponent's proposed law would also be an attack on the 14th Amendment, as the only people who could possibly be punished by this law are those of Caucasian decent![4] The level of hypocrisy within the argument is staggering; to fight racism by imposing a law on a certain race of people (Caucasians) shows that while my opponent's argument may be well intentioned, it is at the moment, baseless. While there are exceptions to this such as in the case of hate speech or 'fighting words' which are meant as direct attacks and intended to provoke harm, opinions and beliefs (and the expression thereof) are not to be abridged in any way, There are laws in place protecting the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and even the American Nazi Party to protect their right to express their beliefs. These next few photographs are of protests that some may call offensive, but entirely legal. Now, I personally find myself in disagreement with the views expressed by the people in the above photographs. American ethics, however, allow them to assemble as they please. No matter how we may feel about their opinions, the fact of the matter is that they are all entitled to have them. To put things simply, from my opponent's argument, an abridgement of free speech here would mean that the abridgement of free speech in many other mediums, including but not limited to artwork or movements such as feminism.Tropes Versus Women in Video Games is an example that comes to mind. The opinions expressed by Anita Sarkeesian, the creator of the aforementioned video series caused quite an uproar which included many feelings being hurt (mostly men), and the thoughts the Anita was being "rude, insensitive and hurtful" to the gaming culture and those within it. Fights were started online due to these videos which resulted in threats of rape, murder, and death, and later on threats of a school shooting.[5] Though it is clear that a deep rooted misogyny was the cause of these threats, it was the initial expression of feminist beliefs that started this uproar. Should we then assume by my opponent's argument, that expression of feminism should be outlawed? Mein Kampf, To Kill a Mockingbird, Uncle Tom's Cabin and many other books have been banned by certain schools due to ideological disputes and fights about their content, so perhaps by my opponent's reasoning, we should also ban books which certain people may find offensive. Or perhaps movies, music, or video games as well that one may find offensive for one reason or another?It may seem like I am jumping off the slippery slope here, and I will admit that the likelihood of the censorship of any of the things I had previously listed will likely never come to pass, at least, not in America. What I am trying to show, however, is that given my opponent's reasoning for such a law, there is no way that his premises follow. Let me remind you that the BoP is placed on Pro to show why such a law should indeed be put into effect. Currently, I can see no sound argument made as to why we should. Not only would such a bill need to contradict 2 Constitutional Amendments thus being contrary to American ethics, but it would also violate the natural right of liberty (as agreed upon by Locke, Jefferson, the framers of the Constitution, and those who follow their teachings) which all human beings are entitled to. To place a law on solely Caucasians is again, simply morally bankrupt.I thank you for reading and look forward to my opponent's next argument.~~~~~Sources:[1] http://www.pbs.org...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...