forbidding specific kinds of public speech can under any circumstances prevent outcomes like that?
Police states are great at preventing outcomes like that.
The problem is that history provides a lot of empirical evidence about how “forbidding specific kinds of public speech” works and what it tends to lead to.
“Hate speech” is not a term that characterizes the speech itself, it’s a term that expresses the speaker’s attitude towards that particular speech. May I recommend a blog post?
Police states are great at preventing outcomes like that.
The problem is that history provides a lot of empirical evidence about how “forbidding specific kinds of public speech” works and what it tends to lead to.
Do you claim the following proposition is true: Every state where hate speech has been forbidden has been a horrible police state.
There is not much reason to fight strawmen.
“Hate speech” is not a term that characterizes the speech itself, it’s a term that expresses the speaker’s attitude towards that particular speech. May I recommend a blog post?
For the purposes of this argument, I define hate speech as X such that X is a member of set S. (see my other comment)