>

(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.
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.