Why Hate Crimes Laws Are Worrisome

This article from WorldNetDaily reports on what it costs to express an opinion in Australia:

Two Christian pastors convicted under a "hate crimes" plan for "vilifying" Islam by quoting from the Quran during a seminar on jihad again are free to debate religious beliefs following a settlement of their long-running case, according to a report from Voice of the Martyrs.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of Australia, the Islamic Council of Victoria and Catch the Fire Ministries have reached an agreement that citizens have the right to "robustly debate religion" and "criticize religious beliefs" within the limits of the law, the VOM report said.
Terms were not revealed, but VOM reported that the pastors have spent more than $500,000 over the years defending their right to present their views and insights about Islam.
The Islamic Council of Victoria had filed a complaint that resulted in convictions for Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot – the first convictions in Australia under the nation's religious vilification ban, the Victorian Religious and Racial Tolerance Act which took effect in 2002.

I'm sure that the Hate Crimes law being considered by Congress would never be misused in such a manner. Right?

Idaho Values Coalition points to this closer to home case that shows how much danger hate crimes laws can be:

A Canadian pastor is facing a hearing before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission over a letter he wrote to a newspaper condemning homosexuality. Some accuse the pastor's letter of influencing the assault days later of a homosexual teenager.
The letter was written five years ago in an Alberta newspaper by Minister Stephen Boissoin. Two weeks after the letter was published, a 17-year-old homosexual youth was beaten. A complaint was filed against the minister, and the commission is hearing the case this week.
Mat Staver is founder of Orlando-based Liberty Counsel. He contends Canada is treading on the minister's free speech. "What we see happening in Canada, is a person's free speech -- speech on the matter of homosexuality, which says that homosexuality is wrong and which speaks of the homosexual agenda -- is now being punished in a court of law and the person is being put on trial solely for what the individual spoke."

If a letter condemning homosexuality causes violence against homosexuals, it raises an interesting question. Wasn't there a time that liberals insisted that pornography didn't cause rape? I suspect that the answer in both cases is the same: you can probably find examples of individuals who are highly suggestible for whom what they read or see causes them to respond with violence. But if so, the same rule should apply for both--and liberals certainly aren't going to go for that.

UPDATE: Reader John Wilson writes:

Every law undergoes some function creep. The RICO laws have been directed against abortion clinic bombers, and famously the Mann Act, the law that was supposed to stop prostitution, or "white slavery", was applied against Jack Johnson, the famous black boxer who had the temerity to have a white girlfriend, and also to travel across state lines with her, causing a violation of the Mann Act, the transportation of girls across state lines for immoral purposes.

It really is an issue of susceptible minds; after all, Charles Manson got secret messages from the Beatles' "White Album", and "Son of Sam" received secret messages from dogs. Will musicians be called as co-conspirators? Are dogs to be made to stop barking?

And the anti hate speech laws will only be used in one direction. No one will be prosecuted for hate speech against Christians or Jews. "Death to the Jews" is, oddly not hate speech!

Heinlein was right, these are the crazy years.