Ehh…some of that analysis makes some good points, some of it doesn’t. He takes issue, for example, with the prohibition of speech that “incites violence” because that’s not narrowly defined. I don’t know much about free speech in Canada, but with the US Constitution’s First Amendment, well and long established precedent from our Supreme Court already holds that speech that “incites violence” is not protected by the First Amendment. And somehow, free speech in the US has not collapsed under that definition. Now, hate speech that falls short of inciting violence probably is protected speech in the US. And I would be nervous about placing restrictions on that speech. It would need to be really carefully defined, or, as many here have pointed out, could easily be used to silence legitimate protest by groups like BLM or pro-Palestinian protestors on the grounds that they are inciting hatred of the majority. And sure, some of that is already happening, but laws like this could easily make that oppression even worse, unintentionally. You have to consider what happens when people acting in bad faith get to enforce these laws. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to legally curtail hate speech. I’m just saying we have to be really, really careful. Unintended consequences can bite us in the ass.
