interesting... but the freedom of speech is already subject to time/place/manner restrictions.

Plus, there are restrictions against "fighting words", that is, speech designed and delivered purely for the purpose of provoking and inflaming.

I don't see in the bill where this removes the need for evidence, it merely tacks on that if the motivations behind a crime are prejudiced and hateful, it can be more damaging than crimes of opportunity.

Anything on the actual bill rather than Rev Pike's interpretations of it?