Would it not be better to abolish all hate speech law?

Jieskje Hollander on the Paradox of Free Speech

The release of the movie Fitna by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders on 27 March 2008, once again illustrated that dealing with hate speech in practice is a lot more difficult for state parties than the legislation, as contained in several international agreements on human rights, suggests. The dividing line between tolerable free speech and intolerable hate speech remains extremely vague as may be best illustrated by the paradoxical reaction of the 27 European Ministers of Foreign Affairs to Fitna on 29 March 2008:

"Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental values which we will not compromise on. The production of this movie falls within the exercise of the rights all our citizens have. Of course, offenses against the law, will have to be dealt with appropriately. Freedom of speech should be exercised with respect for the beliefs or convictions of others."

This quote suggests that whereas freedom of speech should only be exercised with respect for the rights and beliefs of others, everyone has the right to make movies that do not respect the rights and beliefs of others. Would it not be better to abolish all hate speech legislation? The world can do without vague legislation which governments and officials are unable or afraid to apply in times of acute crisis. Current hate speech legislation does not, or cannot, render what it promises.

Read Ms. Hollander's thesis:

I agree with you to that! Nice article too.