@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The issue is whether the elected officials and appointed judges should be the ones to decide whether the words of Israel lovers, or Israel critics constitute hate speech. Obviously in your private life, you can decide with whom you want to associate (but you don't have the power to put people who you decide are offensive in jail).
I'm bringing in the economic concept of "market forces." If the day came when only caucasians bought white bread, then market forces would be the reason that all the commercials for that white bread only showed caucasians. The same would be true for Black cosmetics, only in reverse.
So, if a country believes that if Jews in that country feel threatened by vocal anti-Jewish/Israel rhetoric, and then the Jews in the country literally picked up and made Aliyah, then to prevent the loss of money (transferred), or businesses closing, or fewer professionals, "market forces" might result in less than a legalistic application of free speech. Your wanting a perfect application of free speech, in my opinion, is just the thinking of an idealistic thought process.
As someone that worked in a school system, you might have heard some of your colleagues say, "It is, what it is," to reconcile the regimentation of a bureaucracy.
