If you want to read something GREAT on this (constitutional rule in the UK) the classic is The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot.
**Villa **- what I define as hate speech is threatening someone’s life. Anything else is fair game.
And if someone threatens the life of a US-based ‘dictator’ or businessman, then they would be liable if someone goes out and kills that person.
Isn’t this more akin to terrorism, in that its target is more political in nature, rather than a protected hate crime group? If this was a Muslim doing this because he hates American decadence, I don’t think we’d hesitate to call this terrorism, so why isn’t a white guy doing this because he hates American liberals not?
So you have invented a new definition of hate speech, different to the generally accepted one. OK.
It’s also good to know that American lives have greater value in the brave new world you propose.
I should have been more specific - I would define hate speech for the purposes of legislation as speech which advocates the death of another person. There are other types of hate speech which would not have criminal penalties associated with it.
I still fail to see how I’m reinventing the wheel or something, but whatever.