The problem with outlawing hate speech is this, who defines what constitutes hate speech?

Sure there will be obvious examples, but what about the nuanced cases?

What if I go out and protest against Nuclear power? Well not only being labeled a peace activist terrorist (which can indeed happen now, thank you very much Patriot Act) but I'll have the added charge of being a Hate Speaker too (don't think for an instant corporations won't apply their new found right of being a human to fight discrimination).

Do not make the mistake of believing that a law made with good intentions will be used only with good intentions, always consider how your construct can be used, not only in its best form, but its worst form too.

N

In regard to "the standing of taxpayers to bring before the court the Arizona law regarding use of state funds in religious schools" Barry Lynn and his organization of Citizens United for Separation of Church and State, filed an amicus brief, and in a press release states: "This misguided ruling betrays the public school system by directing tax dollars to religious schools," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. "The court, with the full support of the Obama administration, has slammed the courthouse door in the face of Americans who don't want their tax dollars to subsidize religion."

I agree as very valid his legal counsels' reasoning in 'said brief'. To bar the individual taxpayer or taxpayers a voice in this controversy I find quite upsetting. The question of "standing" is the slippery slope that this "Gang of Five" ideologues has used and continues to use. It is, on its face, a very politically motivated strategy.