People should be stopped when a particular instruction is given to violate the rights of a specific person.
"People belonging to group <x> are terrible. They are snotty and we should shun them." Statements like these are usually vile examples of collectivism/racism. However, they do not call for the specific violation of another person's rights, and for that reason, must be regarded as protected speech, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them. Remember that the right to advocate a boycott is protected by this same principle.
"John Doe is a member of <x>. It would be no bad thing if someone were to kill him, burn his house down, etc." Statements like these are not (and must not be) regarded as protected speech. They specifically incite people to violent behavior that violates the rights of a specific individual.
or:
"Jack and Jill live at 123 Gumdrop Lane, The North Pole, 12345. Their home phone number is (123) 456-7890. This is not a threat, but I think they are in great danger of something bad happening to them, because they have offended the Great Prophet." This statement, when posted on a web forum, is a specific call to action. Its poster should be prosecuted.
To look at things this way is to do so objectively. The problem with the idea of a "hate crime" is that it criminalizes thought, which is a dangerous power for the government to have. Instead, we must fight actual threats, when someone makes them.
All of us have the right to think whatever we want, to advocate for any position we want, as long as we don't call for the violation of a specific person's rights to life, to property, and to speech using property they own or are allowed to use voluntarily.
One last bit: groups do not have special rights, e.g., ones not possessed by the individuals that make up the group. There is no right to not be offended by a statement that someone makes, and it doesn't matter if you're a group of one or a billion.
"People belonging to group <x> are terrible. They are snotty and we should shun them." Statements like these are usually vile examples of collectivism/racism. However, they do not call for the specific violation of another person's rights, and for that reason, must be regarded as protected speech, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them. Remember that the right to advocate a boycott is protected by this same principle.
"John Doe is a member of <x>. It would be no bad thing if someone were to kill him, burn his house down, etc." Statements like these are not (and must not be) regarded as protected speech. They specifically incite people to violent behavior that violates the rights of a specific individual.
or:
"Jack and Jill live at 123 Gumdrop Lane, The North Pole, 12345. Their home phone number is (123) 456-7890. This is not a threat, but I think they are in great danger of something bad happening to them, because they have offended the Great Prophet." This statement, when posted on a web forum, is a specific call to action. Its poster should be prosecuted.
To look at things this way is to do so objectively. The problem with the idea of a "hate crime" is that it criminalizes thought, which is a dangerous power for the government to have. Instead, we must fight actual threats, when someone makes them.
All of us have the right to think whatever we want, to advocate for any position we want, as long as we don't call for the violation of a specific person's rights to life, to property, and to speech using property they own or are allowed to use voluntarily.
One last bit: groups do not have special rights, e.g., ones not possessed by the individuals that make up the group. There is no right to not be offended by a statement that someone makes, and it doesn't matter if you're a group of one or a billion.