>

You can read the actual bill. It's not true at all. There needs to be an underlying crime.
The bill itself also says it would impose criminal penalties for those who "published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on ‘replacement theory,’ or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group, and such published material," if that material was "read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime."

If this happens — which it won’t — it’s going to be a real problem for Tucker. >

Read the bill.  What it does is classify hate crimes as a crime punishable under already existing conspiracy laws, and subject to the same restrictions.  Yes, conspiracy to commit a crime once it meets certain criteria is no longer protected under the First Amendment.  This law would add hate crimes to the list of crimes that can be prosecuted under conspiracy statutes. >

r/Conservative  lost their fucking minds over this yesterday. They kept going on about how it’s racist, discriminatory , and doesn’t define what white supremacy is so non-whites can just willy nilly lock up white people for saying anything. >

Conspiracy isn't just speech.  It requires an "overt act" in carrying out the conspiracy.  They don't have a right to carry out violent hate crimes against people on the basis of race, they can fuck off. >

Where’s the overt act in this bill? The way it reads you can post something about replacement theory, some wackjob reads it days later and attacks someone, and suddenly you’re facing a felony. Seems like it violates the 1A. >

(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.
Also, it's just expanding an already existing statute to include white supremacy hate crimes. >

Except race is already included in hate crime laws. And that’s not an overt act on the person of the person who posting something to social media. >

The overt acts are listed as a part of the conspiracy.  The overt act only has to be committed by one or more persons who were a part of the conspiracy. 
A, B, and C conspire to commit a hate crime by murdering people at a Walmart who are of latino decent. The ideology that drives the hate crime is replacement theory.  A purchases the weapons they plan to use, B publishes the ideology online which recruits D and E to help commit the crime, and C scopes out the Walmart for a day to commit the crime and when latino decent people are present.  They all are ready to engage in the plan as soon as C gives the clear.  The plan is clearly in action with the intent to carry it out and with overt acts in doing so. 
But then D gets cold feet and reports the plan to authorities before it is completed.  The group gets charged with conspiracy. >

Except the person posting the ideology doesn’t have to have met or ever conversed with the other conspirators before, at least under this law. >

Yes they do.
(A) at least one of whom engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime; and
(B) (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.
You're trying to make it as a law banning hate speech online, which isn't the case here.  The title of the article is bs. >

Except that they can read it on Twitter or Facebook. I don’t count that as actually talking to someone. >

Racists hate when they're called racists when they were exercising their right to be a racists. >

WTF is with the 'Quotes' there, Fox? Fuck you and your belittling title for a serious on continuing racial issue you all love to stoke. >

This isn't really Fox; it's worse than Fox. "The National Desk" means that it's excrement extruded straight from the bowels of the Sinclair Propaganda Group.
Edit: Just so it's explicit: Sinclair is simply lying about what the bill actually says.
It's not banning hate speech, is treating people who incite crimes with hate speech as co-conspirators. >


The "Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023" seeks to "prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime" by amending Title 18 of the United States Code to "expand the scope of hate crimes."

We absolutely should be doing this >

It's pretty clearly unconstitutional though. You can't criminalize someone "inspiring" a crime without running afoul of Brandenburg and Hess. >

If it was just hate speech ie calling someone racial slur or being a racist in general…completely agree. However it stating that someone would be prosecuted if they help conspire and plan said a hate crime.
Unless I’m reading this wrong, it essentially allows hate crimes to be prosecuted on a greater scale. 
No speech itself should be outlawed by the govt, even hate speech. However, if an actual crime hate was committed there should be speculations to to criminalize those involved
Edit: read it wrong. Yeah. That’s unconstitutional. Different for social media platforms having TAC. Way different from govt. >


if they help conspire and plan said a hate crime.

Not even conspire or plan. Inspire. >

Yeah. Read a comment on someone else. Added an edit. It’s a no go in my book. There should be more crimes against white supremacy, but speech ain’t one of them