Unless you’re snitching on your neighbor for having unapproved thoughts.
As Laura Ingraham used to say "what is that?"
“based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender)”
Religion isn’t inherent. Why bother with any kooky definition that gets basic facts like that wrong?
Pretty sure “social peace” in this context means unfettered government.
The whole concept of “hate crimes” is fundamentally flawed IMO and never should have been codified into law, because it destroys the concept of equality under the law.
Assault is assault. Murder is murder. Neither is more or less harmful, nor should they be more or less punishable, because of the immutable characteristics of victim and perpetrator.
And speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. Why is some speech a crime, or not, once again depending upon the immutable characteristics of the speaker and the referent?
IOW why is it hate speech for me to opine that a trans person might be dangerous, but not hate speech for a trans person to say the same about Christians?
I have no problem with the idea that someone could be held criminally liable for speech that consists of specific threats or instigations of violence.
Beyond that, I think “hate crimes” and “hate speech” laws should be rescinded. They’re the basis of a lot of the problems we’re having right now.
“A hate incident is a hostile expression or action that may be motivated by bias against another person’s actual or perceived identity.”
Hitler would be so proud.
In the article they they to equate hate speech with hate crimes.
Here “hate” = “disagreement with the state government social narratives”. Aka “wrongthink”.
Off to room 101 with you, Winston!