I really dont mind being called out for questioning hate speech.
even in american law, free speech has limits.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 17 2025 10:37am

So if an individual says they don't like a person based on their skin color.

You're saying that's equal to the individual saying they're going to physically harm someone regardless of skin color?

thats what you're saying

This post was edited by Mondain on Sep 17 2025 10:40am

Cathy Newman much?



I strongly recommend this video to you to support your current method of debate. you know, leaning in to what you know.

To reiterate again, using words that will trigger you, while the masses may think free speech relates to all speech, this is in fact not true. I am sorry if this bursts your bubble.

with brevity I am playing, I will behave now.

This post was edited by ferdia on Sep 17 2025 10:48am

Explain which speech it doesnt apply to in the LAW and not your opinion.

hate speech in usa doesnt exist outside of terms of service on the internet. free speech has very few limitations mostly speech that leads to crimes like incitement or fraud.

This post was edited by 4nt on Sep 17 2025 11:00am

Wrong, the 1st amendments sole and only purpose is to protect unpopular speech and to give it a voice when all others say no.
Hope this helps.

I will do a catch all here.

Fundamentally, I know I will not change your minds on this point. This is a cultural argument. You have your views and I have mine.
I would rephrase: Hate speech leading to harm is not an argument about the 1st Amendment, its about highlighting incitement to violence, or in simplistic terms, cause and effect.

Asked you for the law, not cultural arguments or view points.

I have dinner shortly, i can only copy pasty sorry

"Under U.S. law, the First Amendment protects most speech, but there are well-established exceptions where it does not apply. These include:

Incitement to imminent lawless action – Speech intended to and likely to cause immediate illegal activity (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

True threats – Direct threats of violence against individuals or groups (Virginia v. Black, 2003).

Obscenity – Material that meets the three-part test in Miller v. California (1973) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Child pornography – Criminalized regardless of its content or intent (New York v. Ferber, 1982).

Defamation – False statements that harm a person's reputation (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964; with higher standards for public figures).

Speech integral to criminal conduct – For example, aiding or soliciting crimes.

These are legal limitations recognized by U.S. courts, not just opinions."

that would just be incitement. we have hate crime modifiers but no such thing as hate speech. you can be a hater all you want so long as you dont make calls for violence threaten or defame.