隨便昨天對本人指責道：“仇恨罪：言論攻擊一個民族叫仇恨發言，犯仇恨罪”。然後從維基上抄來一大段關於 hate crime 解釋：

In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender identity.[1]

A hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion."[2]

。。。

（http://bbs.creaders.net/life/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=808373）

邏輯荒誕可笑。

所謂“仇恨發言”（hate speech ）和“仇恨罪”（hate crime）在法律上是風馬牛不相及的兩碼子事，前者關乎言論，非罪；後者則關乎暴力，是行為，如隨便抄來的“攻擊、傷殘和謀殺（assault, injury, and murder）”等等，是罪。不可混淆。

隨便在標題上來回倒騰玩弄這兩個完全不同的概念，竟然捏造出“仇恨罪 = 仇恨發言”這一法律上根本不成立的概念，其險惡用心是在讀者心目中造成一種假象，以為“仇恨發言”和“仇恨犯罪”是一回事。從其發帖後大家辯論的論點等事實證明，大部分心地善良的同學都不幸上當受騙，信以為真，以為五味真的發生什麼仇恨罪了。

什麼是仇恨言論呢？

“The United States Supreme Court has defined hate speech as any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.”

（http://parsequalitycenter.org/newsroom/is_hate_speech_constitutionally_protected1）

本人言論是否構成“仇恨言論”聶？具閱讀能力的網友當可自行判斷，毋庸贅言，況且亦與本話題無關，故按下不表。此處討論的是，言論是否構成犯罪。

我們知道，在美國，言論自由是公民神聖不可侵犯的權利，受到憲法第一修正案的保護。

那麼，所謂“仇恨言論”，是否也受憲法第一修正案的保護聶？

答案是肯定的。

維基“hate speech”的條目中明確地說：

"Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. "（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech）

更詳細、更完整的解釋，則為：

“In the United States, most forms of hate speech are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and laws prohibiting such speech have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, with the exception of hate speech deemed to fall into various categories such as obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. Using principles set forth by the Supreme Court, even in cases where speech would arguably encourage violence, the speech is rendered unlawful only if the threat of violence is imminent and the speech is likely to produce such violence. 

“The “imminence” requirement sets a high hurdle before hate speech can justifiably be proscribed by the state. Speech merely advocating violence is not likely to render it outside of constitutional protections; the words must be directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and must be likely to produce that violence as well. By way of example, a fiery speech urging an angry racist mob to immediately assault an Iranian man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement of an imminent threat against the potential victim. But a poster, magazine article, or any publication aimed at stirring up racial hatred, most likely does not qualify as an imminent threat, and would likely be protected by the First Amendment. 

（http://parsequalitycenter.org/newsroom/is_hate_speech_constitutionally_protected1）

所以，所謂“仇恨言論”，在美國，不是犯罪，且受到法律保護。

隨便所說的“仇恨罪：言論攻擊一個民族叫仇恨發言，犯仇恨罪”純粹是扯蛋，是故意曲解法律，造謠中傷，以行其誣衊、詆毀本人之實。

更嚴重的是，隨便觸犯了美國法律，對本人構成誹謗罪。其誹謗的惡意、不實、對本人名譽造成的傷害人贓俱在，證據確鑿。

本人特藉此機會，給隨便一個機會做出正式道歉。否則，本人保留對其追究一切法律權利。

附隨便原帖：仇恨罪：言論攻擊一個民族叫仇恨發言，犯仇恨罪