I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete
I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.
Judge or not a segment of the population is comfortable with the idea of the thought police and see them as the good guys, which should be a scary realization anytime it is witnessed. I would not want my life held in the balance by a judge who is going to make a subjective decision as to whether my speech was racist or not, in a society that accepts the policing of opinion, the judge already accepts as law that you are not entitled to your opinion, as such the deck is immediately stacked against you. Chances are in such a system judges will be affected by the same confirmation bias and group think as the rest of the population that thinks policing opinions, even when expressed in public is acceptable.
Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.
Judgment call or not there have been witch hunts before and many where sanctioned by authority such as judges, we are talking about policing opinions, it is a slipper slope because the entire idea is rooted in control as such more and more control will be exerted. As I mentioned below even the judges will be influenced by the idea that criminalizing opinions is OK, which will make the ever slighter infraction more and more offensive.
To a certain extent I do feel that it crosse a line in that it makes speech itself criminal. All US speech laws (except for obscenity, but I don't agree that obscenity should be illegal) deal with an inseparable conjunction of speech and action/effect. "Fighting words" and "incitement to riot" both cause an immediate act of physical harm. Defamation requires a demonstration of harm and even then is very plaintiff-unfriendly.
In the US you can never be jailed just for speech, you must be jailed for speech in conjunction with physical harm or targeted harassment.
Yes in the US, the legal system has in the past been innocent until proven guilty, this thinking has at least in spirit extended to innocent of a crime, until action has taken place, this has changed slowly over the years the first to my knowledge was conspiracy to commit murder (in the 1870's IIRC), then others followed like general conspiracy and solicitation etc. But for the most part up until the recent past (1970's on) minor issues required action before you where guilty of a crime. Public speech related offenses are still viewed in the same light, saying we should tear this place down was not inciting a riot until it incited a riot at which point the act of saying it became a criminal offense. So criminalization was retroactively applied to the speech after it created criminal action.
I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.