I love the attempt to inject some critical thinking and rational thinking in to the topic, but there are other factors to consider, imo.

What you have described deals with the mechanics of how the agenda is executed, from a legal standpoint, for example. However, the agenda - which is to label the expression of certain viewpoints or types of thinking criminal by means of the hate speech label - is specifically targeted towards certain types of thought and thinking.

The chant "Death to America!" should be no more criminal than "I hate you, you bloody idiot" or "You are an effin' dude, dude. You're not a woman" for that matter. Because speech is not action, and in these cases, likely not defamatory. It may be repugnant, but to insert the State into these things is the path to tyranny.

So the mechanics are not the point. It's the agenda. The intent and purpose behind using the image of law to oppress and suppress particular types of thinking.

Causing emotional distress ('emotional damage' is a spurious concept at best) by means of words? This is not something that the realm of law should be involved in. At least, certainly not criminal law.

On these particular specifics, you describe the dimension of the mechanisms, BUT if one is to counter the objectives behind these mechanisms, one must look beyond the mechanisms themselves to identify the corrupt nature of their utilization.

I love the attempt to inject some critical thinking and rational thinking in to the topic, but there are other factors to consider, imo.

What you have described deals with the mechanics of how the agenda is executed, from a legal standpoint, for example. However, the agenda - which is to label the expression of certain viewpoints or types of thinking criminal by means of the hate speech label - is specifically targeted on specific types of thought and thinking.

"Death to America!" the chant to America should be no more criminal than "I hate you, you bloody idiot" or "You are an effin' dude, dude. You're not a woman" for that matter. Because speech is not action, and in these cases, likely not defamatory.

But the mechanics are not the point. It's the agenda. The intent and purpose behind using the image of law to oppress and suppress particular types of thinking.

Causing emotional distress ('emotional damage' is a spurious concept at best) by means of words? This is not something that the realm of law should be involved in. At least, certainly not criminal law.

On these particular specifics, you describe the dimension of the mechanisms, BUT if one is to counter the objectives behind these mechanisms, one must look beyond the mechanisms themselves to identify the corrupt nature of their utilization.