>You read a single sentence, and presumed a LOT about the law. Which is to say I assumed sufficient context was provided as is customary in polite conversation

>You read a single sentence, and presumed a LOT about the law. Which is to say I assumed sufficient context was provided as is customary in polite conversation. I also made it quite clear in the first six words of my comment that I was allowing it might not be, as frequently happens. Thanks for the elaboration. The claim that the law regulates only "calling for violence against various groups" doesn't seem to jibe with what I read on the Wikipedia page though. It mentions promoting, inciting, tending to produce feelings of, hatred. And 319(2) doesn't even appear to me to require the speech to be "likely" to result in violence. I'm not telling you what the laws should be, how they are enforced, or what effect they have had, because I don't know and don't particularly care. I'm just interested in what the law is. On my first impression it seems rather broad, and after considering the additional context, it still seems potentially rather broad.