Do you now. So when a white comedian is on stage and telling jokes about black people and some blacks find it extremely offensive and call it hate speech, is it? To them it is. Is it to you? What about the reverse? A black comedian telling jokes about white trailer trash. It's funny, but is it hate speech?
Why go there first? Why not at least deal with, and agree on, what is obvious to everyone but the truly bigoted. Say, a klucker who publicly waxes poetic about lynching. Oh, right, slippery slope. If the klucker is stopped, then artistes will be hobbled and vegetables are open to disparagement. Natural conclusion...
Sure I know, and in this case even better than some REHS (Random Event Hate Speech). But I will say this, if this is the first time I have ever seen this person, I may not be able to tell, and I may even find it funny. In this way I am very gullible because I go out of my way to not listen to gossip, or to offer my opinion to anyone (including my daughter. We converse about what is not cool and ugly, and then let her decide in given instances for herself. There are no "I told you so") But if a pattern emerges, then it may not be funny anymore, not only because it is monotonous. In the age of video taping everything, it is very easy to spot recurrent behavior. For someone who is in the public eye as much as a comedian, it will be pretty obvious. What is even more interesting is, if someone points to a video online that "shows" the person is bigoted, I may even disagree! So unlike pornography, "I see it" may take more experience than just one viewing. It's ok, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! And in the age of Youtube, this process is even simpler. So "I know it when I see it" is probably better approximated by, "I know it when I see it enough times". Logic is aided with experience. So it becomes statistical knowledge. In the future, I think the law will become statistical. Clinton even tried it with "Three strikes you are out" but in that case it is easy to rule one way or another.
No, if comedy cannot be accepted, then what else stands a chance? I go to comedy first because comics like Chris Rock, who I find hilarious, primarily deals on race. If we start with what everyone finds offensive, what difficulty is there in that? You keep throwing around snark on the whole slippery slope idea, but unfortunately that's the main worry those of us against any censorship are concerned with. You have no solution for this, we have already established that. So instead you keep being snarky about it. Let me know if you can ever come up with something that might address that concern. Because if you did, you might find a whole bunch of us who are against the idea suddenly warming up to it.
There's a whole lot of ambiguity in this. Where there is ambiguity and obscurity, it makes for bad law.
Not really, if it goes to court, I have confidence that a jury will 8 out of 10 times do the right thing. The law doesn't pretend to be able to define perfectly every situation. If it did we could replace judges and juries by computer programs. When the law is being made, it may even get it wrong the first time. But that is why the law is a living breathing thing. It evolves as we evolve. It only took five thousand years to figure out to separate Church From State. It took war and countless deaths to abolish slavery. The list is long... The peer system requires independent, unbiased juries, a greater and greater rarity these days.
It's not "snark." You really need to find a new word. I say it because that is what you believe. You mentioned Chris Rock, and I've watched him. Yes, he's funny, and he has a story to tell that has racial subject matter. But you know it's not malicious. If anything, he's reporting on what's out there and putting it back in our faces. He's shining a light. Compare that to obvious malicious intent. Can't do it? Sorry, then I must have overestimated you. You want some "snark?" Okay, here it is: if there were better hate speech laws in place, or if this forum were at least better moderated, then some of your friends here would have a speech impediment.
This is what scares those against the idea of limiting speech, Nitro. We don't want it to be a living, breathing thing. That means it can be "adjusted" to fit whatever narrative works with the party in charge. If the GOP took over, they could limit ideas from the left in calling it "hate speech" or "offensive". The left could do the same to the right. There's no way to assure that can't happen. No one can be trusted to speak for everyone - to decide what is offensive, all the time.