Fred, I see what you're saying, but that is not the question I (or the board) was asked. Thing is, you change the question, you change the results. The question the board was asked was
Is there any argument against [implementing hate speech laws in America] that isn't a slippery slope fallacy?
And I gave an argument against such, that it is unconstitutional. I cited Brandenburg for a good reason, because it specifically dealt with hate speech. I'm making a practicality argument, that such laws will never be made in this country in our life time. If he didn't want someone pointing out the legal faults with such laws, he should have qualified his question to reflect as much. I never intended to get into the policy side of such a debate because I'm just not interested in it.
I answered this question alone because Sleepy answered the vagueness portion of it. Fact is, I'm curious how one could write a hate speech law and not be vague about critical portions of the law (because if a law is too vague on certain points, it will be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds it gives too much power to police and the state).
