Anonymous #1 18h

Word ig

6

Anonymous #2 17h

It’s about the principle of protecting freedom of speech as a whole despite if it’s hateful

1

Anonymous OP 17h

We don’t even protect all speech, we already have exceptions for incitement to violence / criminal acts, why not also include identifiable hate to ethnic, racial, religious groups, etc.?

1

Anonymous #2 15h

Because those exceptions are based on objective forms of speech that incite imminent violence, not subjective offensiveness Using your logic, what would stop the government from saying all forms of inflammatory speech are hate speech? Protections for freedom of speech are a safeguard from government overreach

1

Anonymous OP 15h

Because I would say it should apply only to publicly inciting or encouraging violence or hate If it doesn’t fit those categories, then the law wouldn’t apply to that speech

1

Anonymous #2 15h

There are already laws that prohibit imminent lawless action and incitement of violence. Inflammatory speech is not the same as that. Publicly saying “I hate ____ group of people” is not the same as “I am going to kill ____ group of people tomorrow”. Many hate groups and people affiliated with them are already under surveillance by Law Enforcement because of this

1

Anonymous OP 15h

Yes, but there are no laws to censor hate speech, especially in public spaces.

1