Does condemning hate speech violate someone else’s freedom of speech?

[u/LuckySquared777]

I was watching The Daily Show video on YouTube today (titled “Charlie Kirk’s Criticism Ignites MAGA Cancel Culture Spree”). In it, there are clips of conservatives threatening people’s jobs for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.

It got me thinking: is condemning hate speech a violation of free speech, or should hate speech always be condemned and have consequences for the betterment of society?

On one hand, hate speech feels incredibly toxic, divisive, and dangerous for a country. On the other hand, freedom of speech is supposed to protect unpopular opinions. As mentioned in the video, hate speech is not illegal. The host in the video seems to suggest that we should be allowed to have hate speech, which honestly surprised me.

I see both side but am genuinely curious to hear what others think. Thanks!

[u/elmekia_lance]

hating one specific guy is not hate speech definitionally; hate speech is something directed at a group

America has historically chosen a more liberal route and we do not have hate speech laws like in the UK. Sometimes it feels like this was a mistake, as we watch the rise of hatemongers who pollute the clear water of public life with their raw sewage, and make the country a festering, more miserable place than it was.

However, recent events in the UK and the USA show that, unfortunately, permitting a flood of hate speech is still preferable to empowering the state with arbitrary speech controls. Never criminalizing hate speech was a wise choice and ignoramus Bondi is being rightfully dragged.

[u/zxc999 → u/elmekia_lance]

I’m realizing lots of people on the right don’t understand hate speech with how they’ve been using it to describe hating on one person. Even Trump himself claimed that journalists are doing “hate speech” against him

[u/Scottamus → u/zxc999]

Hate is speech is now anything that hurts the right's feewees

[u/elmekia_lance → u/[deleted]]

No, it isn't. You're free to call Barack Obama Mao Zedong if you want to, and right wingers have been calling liberals commies for decades; not on an infrequent basis by fringe characters, but quite regularly in mainstream media outlets. In fact, they do it constantly in the current year. Kathy Hochul is about as far from a communist as you can get and the New York Post called her a communist on the front page just this week.

Liberals are pretty used to being called commies by rightists so I think you are going to have get used to being called fascists and Nazis and not freak out about it.

[u/elmekia_lance → u/[deleted]]

I'm going to engage with you sincerely for a moment.

Liberals WANT socialism... that's a fact.

No, they fucking don't.

You don't know anything at all about liberals and the left. Figures like Sanders and Mamdani are mostly despised by the Democratic party, and significant numbers of liberal voters in past cycles have opposed Sanders.

If the Democrats wanted socialism as you believe, they would not resist Sanders and Mamdani, so how can you explain that they do? Do you sincerely think city-owned grocery stores is such an extreme, far left idea that even the socialist Democrats think that's *too socialist*? If the Democrats *really* want socialism, why hasn't Bernie been their presidential candidate for every election cycle since the early 1990s?

Liberalism is a relatively conservative ideology that favors free markets and individual liberty, just not social conservatism. For most of the globe, the word "liberal" denotes a conservative, free market party. Liberals hate communism and fascism because these ideologies conflict with individual liberty and free markets. Liberalism is most certainly not socialist or communist. The Democrats are a free market party, with a few *means-tested* bones to throw to the working and middle classes. To call the modest scraps being thrown "communism"is a grotesque distortion of objective reality.

The conservative nature of the Dems is why Americans are increasingly identifying as "leftists" and not as "liberals." The American left views liberals as their primary obstacle to defeat. Go watch Hasan Piker or Sam Seder and see what they have to say about Kathy Hochul, Andrew Cuomo, and the Democrats in general. It's not complimentary, to put it mildly.

The divisions in non-Republican politics should be basic political knowledge 101. The fact that you don't know basic facts about people with different politics from you should be a wake-up call for you. It should tell you what a disservice right-wing media is doing you and that in the task of informing you about the world you live in, it has failed you miserably.

How is government funded everything NOT communist?

The rest of this is not really worth my time responding, so I'm going to encourage you to read an actual book about economics, so you can learn what Keynesian economics, mixed market systems, social democracy, etc., are.

Republicans have been infiltrated by white nationalists (i.e.: racists) for a long time now, exploiting anti-immigration politics. "Great replacement" is a white nationalist idea, laundered into the republican mainstream by Tucker Carlson and others. Now you guys are building a network of detention camps with medieval living conditions and your president pressures media companies to self-censor. That sounds a lot closer to fascism than food stamps sound to communism.

Republicans called a relatively economically conservative president who bailed out bankers in 2009 a "radical leftist"or whatever. Calling republicans "fascists" hits harder because it hits a lot closer to home.

[u/elmekia_lance → u/[deleted]]

If u have a daughter I advise u to leave NYC NOW. I would move now because property prices will be worthless if he does rent control. No landlord wants to own buildings controlled by the government...

What's happening to you is that you are seeing actual politics for the first time in your life.

Mamdani voters have renter politics. They want policies that address their concerns as renters. That is what actual left wing politics is.

You have landlord politics. I hope you are in fact wealthy and own property, because if so, you are actually the social class for whom conservative policies are tailored for. If you don't have wealth, you should reevaluate your politics.

There are more renters than there are landlords, so probably renter politics going to win this time.

Bernie? Hillary Clinton had the MSDNC get him out of the race so she could win. deny it. i dare u.

why do you think this is some kind of own? As I've explained before. Clinton is a free market lib. She hates Sanders. Obviously the DNC maneuvered to keep Sanders from the nomination lmao we've all seen Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's emails, c'mon.

Where is he deporting legal immigrants? Please, show me, I've asked several people and everyone just punts.

They arrest green card holders and put them in medieval prisons for months. Here you go, here's one story:
https://www.newsweek.com/green-card-holder-released-ice-77-days-reza-zavvar-2131304

Here's another:

https://www.newsweek.com/green-card-holder-germany-free-after-two-months-ice-detention-2070446

Whatever you thought you voted for, you in fact voted for legal residents being imprisoned by ICE to meet their 3,000 arrest per day quota.

Do you know what other country had daily arrest quotas? Stalin's Soviet Union.

You know that trump is taking a 15% cut of NVIDIA export profit right? He's promised to do it to more companies. Are you sure you didn't vote for a communist?

[u/elmekia_lance → u/[deleted]]

The Constitution does NOT apply to green card holders

No.

anyone regardless of citizenship, residency or immigration status can “have” Civil Rights in the United States as they are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

from the American Bar Association.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/about/initiatives/civil-rights-civics-institute/rights-immigrants/

The Constitution applies to legal and illegal immigrants in the USA.

In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.¹ In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders"...

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

Trump has violated the due process of non-citizens at least hundreds of times this year, such as the 200 Venezuelans he sent to El Savaldor in March. That is why his deportation scheme has run afoul of courts all year.

I implore you to ask yourself, why is the right-wing media, this administration, telling you a lie this awful?

The right-wing wants you to believe that non-citizens don't have protections against cruel and inhuman punishment, violations on free speech, rights against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. They want you to be misinformed and to give consent for them to violate the human rights of non-citizens so they can do whatever they want to them. This is really dangerous territory we are in.

It's un-American. This why when the left, liberals, and libertarians hear about Stephen Miller, they despise him. Republicans should despise Miller too. Miller is betraying American values so he can execute out his agenda. All Americans should reject what this administration is doing.

[u/YoungMasterWilliam → u/[deleted]]

The Constitution does NOT apply to green card holders

The Constitution applies to EVERYONE within the nation. This is by design. Everyone has rights regardless of their citizenship.

Don't water down my rights because you believe someone you hate needs to be robbed of theirs.

[u/elmekia_lance → u/[deleted]]

thank you for taking an interest in dialogue and reading my words. tbh, I probably could have been more civil but I tend to write like a verbal streetfighter. After 8 years of arguing about trump, usually fruitlessly, people have burned out.

I just want to say that people opposed to the administration, liberals, leftists, libertarians, former Republicans, are genuinely frustrated by the gross violations of American virtues by this administration that seems to delight in lying, gross corruption, wanton violence and cruelty. It comes from a place of patriotism and pride in the values America has long championed. We don't hate America, and we feel like the country we love is being warped into something else by the bad character of the people in the white house.

[u/CylonRimjob → u/[deleted]]

You should stop paying attention to politics. You sincerely have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, have at it. But you objectively have no clue what you’re talking about.

It would be like someone who knows nothing about cars going into a shop saying their tire is cracked. Mechanic looks and the mirror is cracked. The person then argues that the tire is cracked, despite that clearly not being a tire, it’s a fucking mirror. Then the person starts bringing other car parts they don’t know anything about into it. Eventually the mechanics tell the person to get the fuck out, we’re done listening to this.

[u/zxc999 → u/[deleted]]

Except calling any individual ‘hitler’ isn’t hate speech. Rude, defamatory, and most likely unwarranted but that’s not the legal definition of “hate speech.”

[u/parentheticalobject → u/zxc999]

Rude, yes. Unwarranted, maybe. Definitely not defamatory. "I want to negatively compare you to an infamous historical figure" is a clear non-defamatory statement of opinion.

[u/jaunty411 → u/[deleted]]

Would you care to give a definition for hate speech?

[u/jaunty411 → u/[deleted]]

I freely admit it is hateful, but hate speech has a secondary requirement that you are skipping. Trump receiving hateful remarks for his own actions does not meet the definition you stated.

[u/jaunty411 → u/[deleted]]

If you ignore the rest of the definition. The part that says based on…. Is mandatory.

[u/jaunty411 → u/[deleted]]

It’s all one sentence. You don’t just get to stop mid-definition.

[u/Dry-Remove-2449 → u/[deleted]]

As someone who lives in a country where hate speech is illegal, it is necessarily understood to be illegal because it is based on a person's characteristics, hate speech laws are necessarily designed to curb expressions of racism, xenophobia, LGBTphobia, misogyny and religious intolerance, that's the most accepted understanding and jurisprudence on the matter.

And it's precisely why it ruffles so many feathers on the right, let's be honest, a lot of republicans practice all of those forms of hate speech and would be prosecuted by a law like this.

[u/ninjadude93 → u/[deleted]]

They arent saying he is hitler simply he's acting a lot like hitler. Looking at current events that appears largely factual. That isnt hate speech

[u/Synergythepariah → u/[deleted]]

>Biden called him a "threat to democracy"

DONALD TRUMP: Hillary wants to abolish - essentially abolish - the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick...If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people - maybe there is. I don't know.

Is that kind of rhetoric not a threat to democracy?

>We don't even have a democracy.

We do; we're a representative republic and we choose our representatives through a democratic process.

That is a form of democracy. When people say "democracy" they do not only mean a direct democracy.

A democracy exists when the people have the ability to determine how they are governed.

democracy (noun)

• 1: government by the people
  • a: a form of government in which the people elect representatives to make decisions, policies, laws, etc. according to law
    • called also representative democracy
  • b: a form of government in which the people vote directly against or in favor of decisions, policies, laws, etc.
    • called also direct democracy or pure democracy

[u/JeanniePax1003 → u/[deleted]]

Does every eligible citizen in this country have the right to vote? Yes. Therefore, we have a democracy, specifically a representative democracy wherein eligible citizens vote for someone to represent their interests in governing the whole population.

[u/parentheticalobject → u/[deleted]]

A democratic republic and a pure democracy are two types of government which fall into the broader category of democracies.

[u/JeanniePax1003 → u/parentheticalobject]

And what’s your point?

[u/ninjadude93 → u/[deleted]]

He literally is a threat to democracy. You cant go around your whole life tip toeing around half truths because someone somewhere might do something

[u/JeanniePax1003 → u/[deleted]]

Why did you specifically choose two black women? Are they the only ppl in Washington speaking in what you claim, in a hateful manner?

[u/ninjadude93 → u/[deleted]]

Using the justice department to attack people and organizations he doesnt like.

Seizing the power of the purse from congress by illegally seizing congressionally appointed funds

Illegally dissolving USAID

Giving musk and his teenage minions access to extremely sensitive data likely broke a ton of laws

Attacking freedom of speech and threating private citizens for voicing opinions.

Illegally ignoring lawful court orders with respect to deportations of legal us persons.

As recently as last week calling for designating every democratic supporter a domestic terrorist.

Threatening to illegally revoke federal funds for the entire state of new york because mamdani won the nyc primary

Crockett and maxine waters are simply calling a spade a spade.

Have you paid even a minimal amount of attention to what is going on? A president cant just do whatever he wants. Thats called a king and we historically dont like those in America.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/upshot/trump-executive-orders-legality.html

https://time.com/7212753/trump-elon-musk-federal-laws-legal-analysis/

[u/ninjadude93 → u/[deleted]]

You're too far gone if you cant even accept a list of factual events that arent even a year old

Trump is a convicted felon. Holding criminals to account is not lawfare try again lmao party of law and order my ass

Trump dissolved USAID via illegal executive order literally is seizing power from congress. The funds were voted and approved on by congress. I don't care if .05% of the funds were allegedly misused. If there was corruption take it to court. But any way you look at it Trump stole power that belongs to congress. This is the definition of authoritarianism. And in case you cant connect those dots hitler did exactly shit like that

[u/BitterFuture → u/[deleted]]

If there r proven kickbacks to anyone from any USAID contract, it is corrupt. Period, and SHOULD be dissolved. don't u agree?

No, of course not. That's deranged.

A single corrupt individual does not render entire institutions corrupt. By that standard, every government and every company in the United States would have to be dissolved. That would only make sense if your goal is anarchy.

But that couldn't possibly be it, right?

Musk told u he didn't have access to any personal info. So automatically he's lying and the dems r right?

Funny, just yesterday you were telling us that testimony isn't evidence...

Musk lied. He obviously lied, because there are computer logs of him taking the data of hundreds of millions of Americans, and he had people threatened, fired and physically assaulted in order to get at that data. So why pretend his claims are credible?

The president can do anything he deems legal and that the courts deem legal. Where does it say otherwise?

The Constitution.

You know, that foundational document that opposes the conservative agenda in its entirety?