Hate speech is a crime - suggesting a group of people, defined by some characteristic like race or gender, should be subject to violence, has been agreed to be dangerous for hopefully obvious reasons. If hate speech laws didn’t exist and the government tried to stifle that speech, that would be in violation of free speech.
Not sure why you put DEI in as a free speech issue - unless you have some source to go along with the claim that it somehow violates free speech?
> We have examples of the latter like claiming Covid originated in China is “hate speech”.
I think we can both agree that suggesting something like that isn’t hate speech, and I think if there was violent rhetoric against Asian people being “blamed” for covid you’d have a different case on your hands - again, there’s no context for your claim so we can’t really discuss it beyond hypotheticals can we?
> The irony is you accuse the administration of applying the label too broadly
My point is the same people who complain about “free speech” when private companies kick the likes of Alex jones off of their platforms are more than happy to wield the power of the federal government to silence dissent or to force companies and universities to make difficult decisions between keeping funding or standing by the lie principles.
My mistake for confusing hate speech directly with hate crime. Hate speech can turn a crime into a “hate crime” and that’s my mistake for conflating the two. In my original post the thought behind it was hateful speech with an incitement towards violence - either way, I can agree that speech itself shouldn’t be illegal even if hateful, and I agree with where the law is that if it calls for violence against a group it can constitute a crime.
> My point was that you complain about about speech being suppressed, but ignore the same when it comes to things like hate speech and DEI.
I think it’s very clear - the government shouldn’t be infringing on speech. Hateful or not - so long as the speech doesn’t coincide with calls to action or other things that cause said speech to become part of a crime. And even then, it’s still less about the speech - that’s not the illegal part (as you correct earlier) - it’s about the actions that may rise to the level of a crime.
Overall I still don’t know how DEI works into any of this and I’d like for you to elaborate on that part.
Not sure why you put DEI in as a free speech issue - unless you have some source to go along with the claim that it somehow violates free speech?
> We have examples of the latter like claiming Covid originated in China is “hate speech”.
I think we can both agree that suggesting something like that isn’t hate speech, and I think if there was violent rhetoric against Asian people being “blamed” for covid you’d have a different case on your hands - again, there’s no context for your claim so we can’t really discuss it beyond hypotheticals can we?
> The irony is you accuse the administration of applying the label too broadly
My point is the same people who complain about “free speech” when private companies kick the likes of Alex jones off of their platforms are more than happy to wield the power of the federal government to silence dissent or to force companies and universities to make difficult decisions between keeping funding or standing by the lie principles.