I know it already is but should it be?
Everybody should be able to say anything they want, and everybody else should be able to make fun of them.
The US extremist version of freedom of speech that also means freedom from consequences to what you say has nothing to do in a functional society. Which is why only the far right parties try to adopt it.
That’s not how the freedom of speech works in the US. It frees you from consequences from the government, in theory. Not in general.
In practice it doesn’t even work against the government when they choose to ignore it.
Yes, but limiting any speech that does not specifically suggest violence or other illegal acts should also be included in freedom of speech.
What good is freedom of speech if 90% of the time someone can force you to censor yourself or just outright censor you themselves.Examples include people being forced to beep out “murder”, “kill”, or “firearm” or say a different word instead. The mechanism for enforcing these changes or even encouraging them should be fined.
Yes.
They should be encouraged to say whatever they want to say.
What they really want isn’t freedom of speech but freedom from consequence. And that’s something they shouldn’t have.
No. They should get fined for every statement
abolish all laws, and let oppressed people deal with hate speech the way they want
No, but it’s better to have it protected by free speech than it would be to have governments decide what constitutes hate speech.
I think we basically accomplish the same thing with libel and criminal statutes. There’s a pretty clear line. It’s kept limited to a strict victim-perpetrator dynamic, where you’re not going to get arbitrary speech suppression where no one was harmed.
By voluntary associations (like a fediverse instance) absolutely not.
By government? Absolutely. What happens when disparaging the One True God Baby Jesus or His Followers is declared hate speech?
Whatever powers you give the government, you also give to the worst form of that government which you can imagine. The civil liberties that protect rapists and drug dealers are the same ones that are helping keep more people from being kidnapped by ICE in America.
This is an important point. There’s a big difference between guys with guns telling you what you can say, and a local get-together. Sometimes people act like they should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, even if they’re like standing in someone else’s house
More generally I think this https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship is a good way to think about things like this.
Yes. The reason why is because there’s no clear definition on what hate speech even is. Regulating something that has no clear definition and often is context dependent infringes on regular speech.
YES. Someone or something will manipulate criteria for what is hate speech OR ANTISEMITISM, all for its convenience to support genocide or BILLIONAIRE to oppress common people. Imagine if it’s not protected by laws. Fuck censorship, BURN ISRAEL AND KILL BILLIONAIRE!
Yes
/full stop
Yes. I don’t trust anyone to draw the line on what does or doesn’t count as hate speech.
Now, calls to violence are little more black-and-white. I can see a ban on that.
Calls to violence are already not protected as free speech under the first amendment. Niether is obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Most of that just protects the ruling class.
No, it should not. “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.
I don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: “My freedom ends where the next person’s freedom starts.” We can do everything we want as long it doesn’t harm or encroach (and “harm” and “encroach” are loaded words in this context) on the next person. “Harm” and “encroach” here means you don’t diminish the other persons rights, at all.
“At all” is kinda contradictory part. Limiting harm to others would already necessitate limiting freedoms and the more people and closer together they live the more freedoms are limited.
Living in the middle of nowhere and a person can do almost whatever pops in their mind, almost absolute freedom.
Living in a city and there’s a long list of laws/rules/regulations that already limit what one can do. Not that those are bad limitations.
Individuals should not limit other’s freedom, and as such the law can restrict individual freedoms to that purpose.
The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.
In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.
Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.
Imagine living in Queensland rn. Where the phrase “from the river to the sea” is banned…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-05/qld-hate-speech-laws-passed-parliament/106420306
“Hey Bob, want to kayak from the river to the sea tomorrow”
Government seething intensifies
I’d rather know someone is a nazi then not know
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. A lot of extremists like to be heard. I like to know when they’re coming.
