Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

I appreciate my opponent's acceptance. I shall begin with her comment on Voltaire, that "Voltaire's quote is a bit rich, considering he was an educated white male," let us examine Voltaire - he was persecuted by the French government for expressing his own opinions on the monarchy - specifically for making fun of the king, libel. This was the "hate crime" of his day and he was imprisoned and then exiled for it. Now, a couple of centuries later, he is attacked again - this time for being an "educated white male". I agree, educated white males have been privileged in the past - but if that quote isn't discrimination then I don't know what is. Hate speech laws not only violate the fundamental freedom of speech which democracy is founded upon, they also create societies ignorant about other opinions, no matter how controversial they may be. The real question is, does our government have the right to tell us what our opinions are, and to define what is hateful? It is important that readers understand how dangerous this road is to go down. Should we be afraid to voice our opinions because we fear that they might be hate speech? Furthermore, and more importantly, what is "hate speech?" Hate is very interpretive, and almost impossible to define. If I am a clever fascist/American Nazi Party politician then I never use direct hate speech, it's useless. I get my opinions across by cherry picking what members of a certain group have, factually, done whilst missing the bigger picture, or even better I make claims that are untrue but not refutable (what is, really). So I use what's known as "Fool's Socialism" and use the classic blame game against Jewish bankers and how they are causing problems in society. I'm using facts about the Rothschilds and other rich families so it's not hate speech, then extend that to a larger picture about how the Jews have wrecked society, something which my very cherry picked facts will support and which I needn't even say. Note that in doing this I have been prejudiced but not necessarily discriminatory. All stereotypes are based on parts of the whole, parts which could usually be extended to all of us. (There are plenty of non - Jewish corrupt bankers too, of course) What is important is to be able to give the whole facts in response and thus be able to tell someone with such prejudice why they are wrong. When Neo - Nazis and such can go underground with ideas like those above, that is what is dangerous because persecution against them not only gives them legitimacy but also a kind of anti - heroism which is indisputably a much better image than a bunch of skinheads walking around with strange looking signs and banners. The stereotype "skinhead" brings me to my next point - how hate speech laws can turn against you. Viewpoints that are very arguably moral and right can be interpreted as hate speech if you want them to be, and we all know that someone always wants them to be. Take religion - like arguably all other religions, there are some terrible things in Christianity. "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (1) Today condemnation of homosexuality in such a way would be the equivalent of hate speech - thus the question becomes, do we persecute anyone who reads that passage of the Bible? Or better, do we ban the Bible as a book of hate? And is suggesting this hate speech, since, after all, it would be persecution against christians? The web of contradictions gets thicker the further down the rabbit hole you go. Quite frankly, society and governments do not have the right to arrest an individual based on their opinions. I have mentioned this before, but must enthuse that if this were the case we could really go after anyone we liked, since essentially good and bad are often relative and societal values change, not always for the better. Why not start persecuting for perceived hate speech against the majority, in the case of my country the white majority? We could say that it is racism to say that it is the white settles who have caused problems for the aboriginal Canadians. This is true and realization of it has led to aboriginal rights and other indisputably good things (the residential schools up here were terrible, but there's a reason why 4% of Canadians and only 1% of Americans are surviving aboriginals) but if you were to say it with hate speech laws implemented it could be turned against you - far more importantly, you'd be afraid to say it. Freedom of speech is compromised in terms of threats and straight out lies against and about ot individuals. This is very different - because instead of cherry picking the facts or reaching prejudiced generalizations, we are now targeting the all important individual. When an individual is threatened, either physically or verbally, it really doesn't matter why, that is why individualism is so important. I would be the first to prosecute a Neo - Nazi for threatening someone else because of their race. I would also prosecute a school bully who threatened to injure an outsider. I would also favour prosecuting someone who claimed as fact blatant lies against an individual. This is not what is being disputed. In the end, it is a verbal contradiction to condemn someone for having opinions. Your opinion is that they should be condemned for their opinions? Well, my opinion is that your opinion is hate speech for condemning someone for their opinion. Who will be persecuted? I guess that depends on the government's opinion. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments on this controversial but intriguing topic. 1. http://www.religioustolerance.org...