I didn't intend for this, as i reply to points as i read them, but this turned into a wall of text. You seem like an intelligent person who's just misguided, so i took the time.
Also, thanks for the conversation! This was fun.
American I presume?
Yes, and i'm expecting a railing indictment now. Most especially because the relevance is non-existent, which means you're about to attack a way of thinking. That's called an ad-hominem, btw.
Its an admirable position and you're right
Ok, now i'm definitely expecting you to disagree with me; and on extremely nasty terms. I will continue reading.
What hones the law is the precidents
Hones them to what point? What if Roe v Wade had gone in another direction? Would you still consider that just and a 'honing' of the law, or an injustice?
The intent must be to spread hateful ideas and convince others of your ideas
Isn't that the intent of every idea? That someone in power disagrees with an idea, or is offended by it, should not defacto make it illegal.
The law uses the phrase "hate propaganda" rather then "hate speech" if that paints a clearer picture.
You must be new to law, because it's frequently expanded beyond the meaning the layman (you and i) are told. Explain to me, if you will, what the difference between propaganda and speech is? I bet you're having difficulty with that right now.
In the case of Keegstra, you have a teacher who is forcing his opinion Forcing
FORCING. How do you not see this? Anyone forcing their idea on someone else is a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with granted positions of authority. This wasn't a natural extension of an idea, but someone given a position of power who abused it. Abuse of power, in any context, is bad; but it's only punished when racism is involved, apparently.
I'll point out a few other precidents to paint an even broader picture.
I can only imagine, by this, you mean case studies that don't apply; given your previous 'precedent'.
A man in Saskatchewan published and distributed thousands of copies of four different flyers he wrote to his town that described gay people as "sodomites" and advocated for their removal from public schools among other targeted attacks. The courts found that, while all of the flyers vilified homosexuals and attacked their dignity, only two of four were deemed hate propaganda. The man was fined $7500 and told to stop.
This was wrong of both him, and the Saskatchewan courts. I disagree with everything about this case study, unless he was libeling another person. Saying someone is gay is not wrong if they are, in fact, gay.
He was charged on the grounds of spreading false news and hate propaganda
That doesn't make the charges true. False news isn't something anyone should ever be charged with, because it's a clear and obvious avenue for censorship. What the actual fuck? If the government doesn't agree with what you just said, it's suddenly 'false news'. How is that not an obvious civil rights violation? Jesus fuck.
Instead he was extradited to Germany on the grounds that he was considered a national security threat
So, censorship? They didn't agree with what he said and, despite not being convicted of overtly bullshit crimes (and laws), they still threw him out? Awesome country you have there. Better not say something they don't like.
I included this one because it shows a very high limit to the law.
Haha. No, it doesn't. It shows the sheer absurdity of your government, that someone not convicted of a crime still gets thrown out for the not-crime he committed. That's beyond disgusting.
A man lost custody of his two children after they were repeatedly sent to elementary school covered in Neo-Nazi writing and symbols.
Tattooing children is, and should be, illegal. The kids were not capable of deciding to get tattooed. I'm fine with this, because it's not a limit on free speech; it's a limit on what you can do to a child.
Slightly different but two brothers were charged with public inciting of hatred and criminal harassment after burning a cross on the lawn of a local interracial couple. They received two months in jail.
Also fine with this. It's, broadly speaking, forcing a view on people who obviously don't want it. That wasn't their property. Now, if they'd burned the cross on their own lawn, i'd be incensed by this ruling.
I hope this gives you a better idea of when the law is and isn't applied.
It does, and i think i've made it clear where my boundaries lie, and where i disagree. Believe what you want, say what you want, but if you force it on other people prepare to get fucked.