Hate speech laws

From Stumbling and Mumbling a great argument against hate speech laws.

"by the time a group is sufficiently influential to be able to get legal protection against hate speech, it is - by definition - no longer stigmatized and marginalized. For example, the time when gays needed protection from hate speech was in the 50s, when Alan Turing was being persecuted to death, or the early 80s, when homophobia made it impossible for an out gay man to become an MP. But those were precisely the times when people did not listen to people like them. It is only now that laws against inciting hatred of gays can be countenanced. But in these more civilized times, gays - to a large extent - already enjoy equality.By contrast, the people who most need protection against hate speech today are those so marginalized that they can't get it: these might (very arguably) include asylum-seekers, "chavs", "hoodies", future generations or even the unborn."

This is also a good argument against affirmative action. Currently, conservatives are greatly underrepresented in college faculties because of discrimination against us in hiring. But if conservatives ever become strong enough to get colleges to have affirmative action for us, then we would almost certainly not need affirmative action because we would be strong enough to stop hiring discrimination against us.