How about reading for comprehension?
I know this is contrary to the steady drumbeat of misinformation from a certain flavour of conservative Americans.
The law is designed to apply to public speech like “Kill all the Christians!” “Gays are to blame for high gas prices! Beat 'em up for fuel economy!”
Here’s the legislation. Examine it and craft an example of victimless public speech that you could expect to get into trouble for. It only provides protection against promoting simple, unreasoning hatred against people based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation.
Fred Phelps could bring his “Love Crusade” down here and not break a sweat, because even his despicable drivel meets the very broadly defined test of sincere public discourse. “God hates fags! Leviticus says they’ll burn in hell and every Canadian will too for giving them legal protection!” is perfectly acceptable speech, so far as the law is concerned.
“The world will not be safe until every last limp-wristed homo is dead” is going to get you into trouble, if you broadcast it. Don’t worry about being dragged away by the gestapo if you express that opinion in private, though.
The approach is to target speech that is harmful in a real way, while protecting the right to diversity of opinion.
It’s not a new concept, and I think you’ll find American laws that limit your freedom of speech similarly. You can say “You’re a loudmouthed asshole,” but you’re going to get in trouble if you say “If you open your mouth again I’m going to cut your fucking throat.” It’s just speech – but it’s better to make it an actionable offense than to say everything’s o.k. until the guy’s bleeding out.
“Sticks and stones” isn’t entirely true. RTLM in Rwanda was “sticks and stones.” There were already laws on the books that made the massacre of almost a million people a bit of a no-no, but they didn’t help much. Sometimes speech has real consequences. Any protection against that kind of insanity is a good thing.
It can happen here. Masses of people are bugshit crazy.