Re: I don't agree with the petition

A state is NOT essential, as the Icelanders proved for over three centuries a millenium ago. They had three centuries of stability before a rising crime rate (lower than what we have in the US at present) pressured them into forming a state. Three centuries of stability is at least two centuries more stability than the USA has ever had.

But you're talking about a time when people were beholden to supernatural entities and took that very seriously. In one sense they did have a state; they just saw it as transcending the physical world. You can't apply that situation to modern covilization, certainly not modern America. It's a melting pot of religions (and non-religions) and cultures, as it is supposed to be. A state is needed to unify this mix.

But even given the usefulness of a minimal state, that does not mean that this proposed "protection" is a good idea, because it gives the state a justification for FUTURE interventions that are detrimental to minorities. The impulse which claims that the government can prevent free speech to protect us from vigilantes is the same impulse which claims that the government can prevent Our free speech to protect children from "the evil pedophiles". I don't want any part of that.

The First Amendment will always have limitations. There are several: child porn is still outlawed, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, no fighting words, libel, etc. What they do constitutes harassment of individuals. This is different from the quantified protection of a designated group, which has a long Constitutional basis and history. These are completely different things.

There are already laws against making threats or harming people, and those are the laws we should rely on. I want my enemies to have free speech because I want free speech

Yes, but as long as they are vague on certain groups or types, they will continue to be flaunted. This is why gays require special protections, and why we need them as well.