system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
cmv: We shouldn't have legislation against hate speech.

Particularly pertinent to anyone from the UK where hate speech legislation has existed since the 1980s. 

In essence (according to Stop Hate Speech UK) "If a post is hostile towards a person's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity it could be viewed as Hate Speech". 

In the 1986 public order act itself:

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

I understand the kind of situation this is designed for. If someone is walking down the street and another person yells racial abuse at them - as has happened to me. It seems reasonable there should be some kind of legal framework to protect the victim here. 

But the issue is that any legislation imposed around this will be necessarily ambiguous. You can't list all possible offensive slurs for all possible groups of people. So the law falls back on banning the use of "insulting words" as a general term.

This ambiguity is where the real danger lies. And this is evidenced by the cases where this has been implemented. Sometimes to arrest priests for homophobic sermons. Then another time to arrest an atheist for leaving anti religious pamphlets at a church. Or, in one of the more absurd cases, a 19 year old girl was arrested, charged and prosecuted for copy and pasting the words to a rap song by Snoop Dogg that included the n word, on her instagram. Her sentence carried with it a £500 fine, a curfew and an ankle bracelet to monitor her. 

Thankfully this was overturned on appeal but shows evidence that convictions on ridiculous cases can and do happen. 

In the case of this girl it was perhaps a lapse of judgement that got her arrested. 

But what about in more nuanced cases. How can the law tell the difference between hate speech and art or satire? Many of the best jokes, from the best British comedians are deeply offensive on the surface. But they are funny because they tell a deeper truth about the world. Ricky Gervais made the astute point that laughing at offensive humour is only possible when you know something is wrong. 

Can the government decide what music people should and shouldn't listen to? Rock music was built on being loud and offensive. What about stories that deal with difficult subject matter, that too can so easily be misinterpreted. Should these be banned? 

Recently, in a ironic twist of fate, a senior politician in the government has suggested using hate speech legislation to arrest people for using the term 'white privilege'. Something that may even give people about to defend this legislation pause for thought. 

And within the statute stated above, why shouldn't they? It's perfectly reasonable to describe this pejorative statement about white people as racist. Now if you want to have an open discussion about this, you stand the risk of arrest.

This leads me to my final point. Ambiguous legislation like this can so easily be weaponized for political purposes. To quash dissent, destroy valid criticism, and silence political satire. 

Going back to my former example. The application of these laws by political parties terrifies me so much more, than some member of the public saying a racist comment as I walk down the street. 

Change my view.
gpt
What about laws against incidental hate speech? Not all calls to violence should be illegal but someone calling for violence against a certain group of people with a given immutable characteristic should be illegal IMO.