It's not that we protect hate speech. We protect speech. Regardless of content (in 99.999% of uses).
As has been brought up in a different comment branch, there is no single perfect definition of "hate speech." It's nice while a hate speech ban matches everything you agree with, but too easy to pivot into something worse.
so it is an oversight? granted the drafters of the US constitution were very young and inexperienced but surely they would have mentioned hate speech separately?
What problems does a law that forbids hate speech solve? My country has strong provisions against hate speech but has countless problems with radicalization anyway. It is also far more likely to succumb to fascism compared to America.
I believe advocates of these laws just want to quench dissent, since hate can be defined as anything.
"It's nice while a hate speech ban matches everything you agree with, but too easy to pivot into something worse."
This kind of argument always strikes me as a rather poor defense that basically reads: we cannot find a perfect solution/system, so we're not going to do anything.
In reality, no system is perfect and can be abused one way or another. The task is to find a cost/benefit trade-off that most people are comfortable with. Instead of arguing that nothing should be done because it can later be abused, just own up to your value system and acknowledge that this is the cost of the way you frame/uphold your values and you are prepared to pay it.
> The task is to find a cost/benefit trade-off that most people are comfortable with.
And those peoples children. And their children. And their children's children.
> just own up to your value system and acknowledge that this is the cost of the way you frame/uphold your values and you are prepared to pay it.
And our value system is that while I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to death your right to say it. And sites like 8chan is the cost we have to pay. I don't believe attempting to silence it would stop shooters, like other commenters say, they would just move into tor and telegram groups. And I think having hate speech be allowed publicly is a adequate cost to ensure that what I say today doesn't have to agree with what someone thought was okay 200 years ago, and that 200 years from now the current political opinions won't affect other people's rights to speech.
> and you are prepared to pay it.
You'll pay it, but also your children. And their children. And their children's children. Except it's shown time and time again that the way values are framed and upheld changes, while the "payment" of it doesn't.
> arguing that nothing should be done
It's not doing nothing, it's the exact opposite. You suggest we suppress it, I suggest we encourage anyone be able to speak their mind and then decide individually if they're worth listening to.
It’s not so odd when you see countries with laws labeling and controlling “hate speech”, such as the UK, end up prosecuting people for blaspheming religious prophets and critiquing religion.
There are obvious pros and cons to nebulous hate speech laws. They codify assumptions about what is currently culturally sacrosanct into law without regard for consequences.
