Anonymous #2 18h

They already do and have since the country has existed

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Infringing upon any speech gives the government power to define what hate speech is and that in itself is a detriment to free speech as a whole

1

Anonymous #3 18h

And they shouldn’t, it already goes too far. See the girl who got arrested for making a Bibi the Bomber joke

1

Anonymous #3 17h

You’re right, as established in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, Schenck v. United States, Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, etc, and the one thing all of them have in common is they are content based restrictions when they incite imminent violence or a clear and present danger, the government can’t restrict speech just because it’s hateful or inflammatory

1

Anonymous #2 17h

I’m pretty sure this is what she got arrested for actually

3

Anonymous #2 17h

She hasn’t been convicted of any crime yet. One case of overzealous enforcement doesn’t mean we’re excessively punitive with speech laws. The U.S. is arguably way too lax about speech

3

Anonymous OP 17h

You can clearly define hate speech without allowing the government to infringe upon every right imaginable Americans would rather allow slurs to continue and protect their “free speech rights” which don’t even exist in the way they conceptualize.

1

Anonymous #2 17h

So, someone should be able to threaten someone, but it should be protected speech? Someone should be allowed to yell fire in a movie theater? Gun at an airport?

1

Anonymous OP 17h

That’s the way it is, but not the way it SHOULD be

1

Anonymous #3 17h

The issue isn’t whether hate speech is bad, I think most people can agree it is. The issue is giving the government the authority to decide which opinions or language are unacceptable. Once that precedent exists, the definition can expand well beyond obvious slurs are hateful statements depending on who’s in power.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

That’s why you create laws with safeguards, all laws should be created with that idea in mind whether or not they’re related to speech

1

Anonymous #3 17h

Aren’t laws protecting free speech already the safeguard against government overreach?

1

Anonymous #3 17h

You aren’t recognizing the different between speech that incites imminent lawless violence vs inflammatory/hateful speech when there is a clear legal difference

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Well, free speech isn’t absolute. There are certain cases we already allow as exceptions, for example publicly inciting violence.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

There is a clear legal difference, I recognize that, I just disagree with the foundational philosophical idea behind not regulating hate speech, because it directly contributes to societal harm and inequality

1

Anonymous #3 17h

You’re right, but existing exceptions are based on objective harm or imminent violence, not subjective offensiveness

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Yes, but I’m saying there should be exceptions for hate speech morally, I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the legal routes to make that happen or if it’s possible tho, but I’m not a big fan of the constitution anyways

1