I realise that it’s shorthand, but just to be pedantic, there’s no law against ‘racism’. I personally don’t believe that ‘race’ is a meaningful concept, but many people do – and they are not breaking the law in doing so.

Back on topic – I agree it’s a really bad idea but it does have legal analogies. You have been assaulted, for instance, if you have been put in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. It’s the perception of the victim which counts (yes, “reasonable” is a let-out, but I imagine that “reasonable” would be stated or implied in any hate-speech legislation).

To support this disturbing claim, he cites an erroneous Australian human rights commission report falsely claiming that American law puts the burden of proof on defendants to prove themselves innocent.

That is false. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) and Texas v. Burdine (1981) that the defendant does NOT have the ultimate burden of proof; the complainant or the government must prove the defendant is guilty.

I discuss those cases, and the false claim of the Australian “human rights” authorities, in an April 16, 2008 post on international law at OpenMarket.org, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where I serve as counsel.

(I spent years as an attorney bringing and defending discrimination cases in private practice, and also worked briefly at the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, helping adjudicate discrimination cases).

I agree racism needs to be confronted, but not like this, this will benefit no one, and could only make things worse.