Hate speech isn't even a valid legal distinction in the US, first of all.*
Even philosophically, it's extremely hairy to define. Would you consider harshly criticizing Scientology and its adherents to be hate speech? How about harshly criticizing Islam?
It's pathetic to me how nowadays any criticism of a group, no matter how valid, has been rebranded into "hate speech" by so many. Just because you criticize something don't mean you "hate" it.
But lets say you do. Even if you genuinely hate something, what exactly is so wrong with that? There are aspects of certain organizations and philosophies that I hate -- should I not be allowed to express that without being condemned for it?
*There are hate crimes, depending on mens rea (motivation) but anything that would be considered "hate speech" in many EU countries is generally fully protected in the US.
> In October of 1989, a group of young black men were hanging out in front of their apartment complex, discussing the movie Mississippi Burning, in which a number of black people are beaten. As a young white boy walked past the complex, and Todd Mitchell, one of the group, called out “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?” then said, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” and led his friends in an attack on the boy. The black men stole the boy’s tennis shoes, and beat him so badly that he was in a coma for four days.
> Mitchell was convicted on charges of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court, but because the jury ruled he had chosen the victim based solely on race, the crime was elevated to the level of a hate crime. In this case, Mitchell’s words were intended to incite violence against a person, based on a trait or attribute – his race. Although Mitchell appealed his conviction, claiming the conviction violated his right to free speech.
> The question of constitutionality in this case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, which held that the First Amendment does not bar the use of a person’s speech as evidence to establish elements of a crime. In fact, such evidence is commonly used to prove a defendant’s intent or motive, as well as to determine relevancy of certain evidence, or reliability of a witness’ testimony. The crime in Mitchell’s case was aggravated battery, not the words that he spoke, which provoked his companions to engage in the crime. Therefore, Mitchell’s free speech rights were never impeded.
This is a personal attack. Further, you've put words in the other person's mouth and that's a battle thing not a discussion thing. It breaks this guideline:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Even philosophically, it's extremely hairy to define. Would you consider harshly criticizing Scientology and its adherents to be hate speech? How about harshly criticizing Islam?
It's pathetic to me how nowadays any criticism of a group, no matter how valid, has been rebranded into "hate speech" by so many. Just because you criticize something don't mean you "hate" it.
But lets say you do. Even if you genuinely hate something, what exactly is so wrong with that? There are aspects of certain organizations and philosophies that I hate -- should I not be allowed to express that without being condemned for it?
*There are hate crimes, depending on mens rea (motivation) but anything that would be considered "hate speech" in many EU countries is generally fully protected in the US.