The removal of confederate monuments

[beecanbee]

One serious problem with hate speech is that it encourages or emboldens illegal harmful physical action by some, who otherwise would not take that action.  Hate speech would likely be moderated if the speaker/influencer was also charged for the physical crime under conspiracy laws.  The `hater` could still say whatever he wanted, given the freedom to speech, but pay the same penalty as the criminal actor if it could be shown that his speech/blog/book/etc. likely influenced the criminal.  Beecan

The problem with moderators is bias.  Who decides what is hate speech and what is reasonable.  I say Brian Cardinal spews hate speech, but, he has the right to say it.  Not on a private forum, if the owners decide, but in public, whenever and wherever he chooses.  As long as he does no harm. 

The US government has no right to moderate my, or other free speech.  In Europe that is not true.  You can be silenced by the government easily for warming comments, anti-islamic comments, pro nazi comments.

I didn`t suggest a moderator - just legal co-responsibility for crimes committed on the basis of speech that encourages those crimes.

[kathyp]

One serious problem with hate speech is that it encourages or emboldens illegal harmful physical action by some, who otherwise would not take that action.  Hate speech would likely be moderated if the speaker/influencer was also charged for the physical crime under conspiracy laws.  The `hater` could still say whatever he wanted, given the freedom to speech, but pay the same penalty as the criminal actor if it could be shown that his speech/blog/book/etc. likely influenced the criminal.

  If it can be shown that you incited behavior that is criminal or damaging it can already be charged.  Anything other than that is trying to make one person responsible for the behavior choices of another.  That's nuts. 
If I say I hate cats and I think everyone should hate cats, then my neighbor goes and kills a bunch of cats, I am not responsible for his choice. 

conspiracy requires 2 or more people to plan or act together.  If someone acts on what they hear and they are not directed to act, or the act is not planned,  it is not a conspiracy.

[beecanbee]

... conspiracy requires 2 or more people to plan or act together.  If someone acts on what they hear and they are not directed to act, or the act is not planned,  it is not a conspiracy. 

Agreed - that is the way the law works today.  But my suggestion is to expand that - to cover cases where it can be demonstrated that the criminal has been embolden to take action based upon hate speech.  For example, at a hate rally (KKK, anti Muslim, anti government, etc.), speaker says - Go out there and kill some xyz`s, or prints the same in their blog, newsletter, etc., and a criminal or mentally deficient person does exactly that, and it is shown that the criminal read or heard that admonition, and it is reasonable to presume that they would not have acted had they not read or heard - EVEN tho said speaker/writer and said criminal never directly spoke together, nor planned together - THEN I would include said speaker/writer within the conspiracy.  Claiming no responsibility due to free speech, IMO, is nonsense.