Please define hate speech.
And no, if it hurts one's pretty little feelers, it's not hate speech.
Well, thanks
@Assadi who delivered a pretty good definition.
The thing is, like everything else, like every other rule/law, there are thin lines what falls under the law and what not.
Let's give a basic example. A speed limit on highways. It can be measured, right. So you can clearly say who is too fast and who not. But who defines the limit? What is the limit over in USA? Funny enough, you don't have the same speed limit in all states. So even a thing which is totally measurable can't be grounded in 1 same rule.
Now, how to measure "free" in speech? What is free speech? Give me a definition of that. Something which can't be measured will always have a definition which can't be exact. So you will always find "loopholes". If I delivered you what "hate speech" is, you would find a way to twist and turn it against me, because the thin line between "free" and "hate" can't be seen or measured.
I fundamentally disagree with anyone who thinks hate speech doesn't exist or when they triviliaze it to "hurting one's pretty little feelers".
This is exactly how the 3rd Reich was created. After the Germans lost WW1, they were upset and economically in decline (pretty harsh times). And somehow they started believing that the Jews were the fault for all of that (they seemed to be not effected much). It started pretty harmless. "Don't buy from the Jews" they said. Then they marked the housedoors of people who were Jews. And so on and so forth, we all know how that escalated.
So hate speech can look harmless, but emphasis lies on "hate". If your motives or words or intentions are hateful, then yes, you should be punished for that. Or in other words, the targeted group should be protected from you. Because, specially minorities, who can't overrule you, who are much lower in numbers than you, they can't look at you from eye to eye on the same level. Because you have the highground, it is not fair. You can always out-vote the minority by sheer numbers.
Let's say we sit together at a table with 8 other people who all are friends of yours (total 10). Now you insult me with the nastiest, darkest, hateful words you can ever think of. Your friends will vouch for you of course. What are my chances here? Now if I say something back to you on the same level, what are my odds that I don't get beaten by you? You have the highground, you have all the help you can need because of the friends. Where is my protection from that? You could insult me the whole night, and I wouldn't be able to do anything against you. Because as a hypothetical hateful person, you just wait for one wrong word from me. You wait for the trigger. This can escalate so quickly. Words are powerful because of human psychology. You can control and influence one's psychology with words. And psychology controls people's actions.
What if I take out my knife and ram it into you because I can't stand your insults and hate anymore? So for better protection and de-escalation, we need laws to keep everyone civilized. On the internet that 9-1 can be a millions-to-thousands ratio. The internet is so powerful these days, you can't underestimate it.
Also on the internet there is no physical intimacy, so no barrier. Most people who would be afraid to say nasty things on the street, somehow get confidence boosts on the internet and start saying things they wouldn't be able to say eye to eye...
We are betraying the principles upon which the internet was founded. It's an attack upon its very soul.
That is so funny and so wrong.
The internet was founded for the US military to have better communication on the battlefield or when at war.
What soul are you talking about?