Laws are based on morality, but they can only cover peoples actions, not their motivations. People who’s motivation is to be nasty to people they see as lesser will find a way to do so, and trying to eliminate any action they could take to show their hate would lead to a tyrannical micromanagaing government and a society that can’t be called free. Obviously we have to legislate against physical harm, and do what we reasonably can against financial harm, and threats, and more reasonable things I’m too tired to enumerate, but at some point social pressure and personal consequences are a better way to handle such behavior. The more society is improved, the better it will be at this function.
I have no disagreement with your 3 points on how the wealthy have coopted the legal system.
Motivation is already a very important concept in all modern legal systems. Mens rea can be the difference between spending years in prison or walking off with a community service sentence; evidence of a motive, or lack thereof, can be the deciding factor in the success of the prosecution; the list goes on, really. Establishing people’s motivation, and separating good faith actors from bad faith actors is one of the most important factors for any judgement, from forum moderation to a criminal court.
As such, it is possible (and I would argue necessary) to prohibit hate speech in the law, clearly defining what it is and what it isn’t, and let the courts decide for each individual case.
Laws are based on morality, but they can only cover peoples actions, not their motivations. People who’s motivation is to be nasty to people they see as lesser will find a way to do so, and trying to eliminate any action they could take to show their hate would lead to a tyrannical micromanagaing government and a society that can’t be called free. Obviously we have to legislate against physical harm, and do what we reasonably can against financial harm, and threats, and more reasonable things I’m too tired to enumerate, but at some point social pressure and personal consequences are a better way to handle such behavior. The more society is improved, the better it will be at this function.
I have no disagreement with your 3 points on how the wealthy have coopted the legal system.
Motivation is already a very important concept in all modern legal systems. Mens rea can be the difference between spending years in prison or walking off with a community service sentence; evidence of a motive, or lack thereof, can be the deciding factor in the success of the prosecution; the list goes on, really. Establishing people’s motivation, and separating good faith actors from bad faith actors is one of the most important factors for any judgement, from forum moderation to a criminal court.
As such, it is possible (and I would argue necessary) to prohibit hate speech in the law, clearly defining what it is and what it isn’t, and let the courts decide for each individual case.