Anonymous #3 20w

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 OP 20w

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 #3 20w

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 20w

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 20w

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

1

Anonymous OP 20w

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

1

Anonymous #3 20w

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

1

Anonymous OP 20w

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