How can that be a classic behaviour? For one, they haven’t done it, as illustrated by hard they’ve cracked down on any racist behaviour since the cessation of WII. And wouldn’t they have had to have done it more than once for it to be a classic behaviour? They’ve literally been nazists once. They’d have to have been nazists more than once, and gone through the phases you’ve described for any normal person to call it a “classic”.

You know what is an example of a classic behaviour though? Internet “experts” who just trust what they’re given and don’t do any research about it. Like you’ve done. Want proof? Read the other reply to the comment you’ve replied to here. And if that’s not enough, explain to me why the German foreign minister hasn’t been jailed/charged/etc for these remarks.

Agreed. Hence the issue with “hate speech” in quotes.

When Is Offensive Speech Unprotected?

Speech which is merely offensive is always protected by the First Amendment. However, some types of speech which are often conflated with “hate speech,” but which go beyond expressions of opinion can, in limited circumstances, be unprotected by the First Amendment.

Let’s talk about incitement to violence and harassment.

(Tl;dr: incitement to violence and harassment are not protected speech)

I seem to recall that when southern states wanted to prosecute Martin Luther King, Jr for “hate speech” on the theory that his calls for equality amounted to anti-white racism, the way SCOTUS dealt with that was by punting on the question of what hate speech is or isn’t.

By taking the ‘hate speech’ stick away from states, the high court effectively ruled that Nazis had the right to rallies under the rubric of free speech. It was this optimistic dithering on the court’s part (surely, the way forward is free speech and everybody will use that in good faith right?) that is part of why the US’s stance on hate speech diverged from that of Europe and the commonwealth

Idk, hate speech has been illegal in the UK for a long time. Race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation and religion are all protected under hate speech laws. The statues have been continuously updated since 1986 and we’ve still managed to not criminalise asking your doctor for an abortion.

I think I’d rather live with hate speech laws than without them, but if I lived in a country that couldn’t separate church from state, or in a dictatorship, I suspect my opinion would change.

In Canada restricted hate speech works like this :

It requires three parts.

• Describing group members as animals, subhuman or genetically inferior

• Suggesting group members are behind a conspiracy to gain control by plotting to destroy western civilization

• Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members

• Labelling group members as child abusers, pedophiles or criminals who prey on children

• Blaming group members for problems like crime and disease

• Calling group members liars, cheats, criminals or any other term meant to provoke a strong reaction

Punishment wise it’s about on par with a disorderly conduct charge… So about the same as being drunk and yelling your head off in a public place or running nude through the streets. Police aren’t likely to arrest someone for it unless the hate speech is obvious or well documented it and someone actively complains.