2 points
I oppose letting anyone define hate speech as a matter of principle, because even if I agree with the definition completely now, I may not continue to agree with the definition in the future. Look at what has been happening in the USA since the October 7 attack: a lot of people I had considered my political allies turned out to have beliefs I consider to be hateful, and meanwhile these people consider my own beliefs hateful. The solution is not to empower a single central authority to decide which sort of hate is allowed. It is (as it has always been) to maintain the principle of free speech.
1 point
How about incitements to violence and outright explicit disinformation/misinformation, like:
- [group] should be [violent act]
- [group] are [dehumanizing pejorative] that deserve [violent act]
- [dogwhistle for the actual Nazis, like the 14 words, terminology specifically referencing the Final Solution, etc]
- [hard r] are [extreme dehumanizing pejorative] and don’t deserve [human rights]
- [violent or repulsive act] the [slur]
- “Despite only making up 13%…”
- “Whites create and forget, [slur]s copy and remember…”
