[larholm]

Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere, not even under the 1st amendment in the USA.

Death threats are illegal whether they happen offline or online.

Yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!" in an airport comes with consequences.

I believe we can agree on these two examples.

[kjksf]

Yes, we can.

But that's not what "hate speech" is code word for.

At this point in time any opinion to the right of extreme leftist ideology is considered by said leftist to be "hate speech".

Examples of "hate speech": criticism of muslims (but jews are ok), or minorities, or men playing in women's sport or breast amputation of 15yr olds, or immigration.

Nick investigating Somali fraud is racist and hateful.

The "hate speech" box is big enough that you can put a lot in it.

So yeah, we agree that there are limits to free speech. We agree that death threats cross the line.

But you tell me if we agree where that line is.

If you think there's such think as "hate speech" and it crosses the line, then we do not agree.

[tordrt]

Where would any of your hate speech examples actually be illegal?

[mortarion]

Countries in Europe (and most of the world) have positive constitutions, which defines what the government "must do" (for its citizens), whilst the USA has a negative constitution that defines what the government "cannot do" (against its citizens).

What constitutes hate speech is carefully defined in the constitutions of EU countries. Politicians can't just amend or extend the definition at will, except in the UK which has a strange system of laws and not a constitution like you're used to in the USA or in the EU.

In Europe we recognize that Hitler came to power by abusing free speech, which is why using the same rhetoric now can land you in trouble with the law. We also recognize that the pen is mightier than the sword and that unfettered speech can be used to persuade groups of people to use violence against other groups of people.

[matheusmoreira]

> Yelling "I HAVE A BOMB!" in an airport comes with consequences.

It's not the speech itself that's illegal, it's the fact that they made everyone nearby aware they could have the means to mass murder everyone around them. People will obviously react to that by taking down the potential threat.

[eunos]

That's a convoluted way of saying "You have a freedom of speech but not after the speech"