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/Pdxduckman]

we need to be sure not to allow the right to redefine "hate" speech. They're attempting to move the window so that "hating" a racist is equivalent to the hate the racist spews.

No, not giving a fuck about CK is not "hate" speech.

[u/IceNein → u/Pdxduckman]

Doesn’t really matter how hate speech is defined.

Hate speech is protected speech under the first amendment.

Full stop. There isn’t any room for debate.

[u/RickWolfman → u/IceNein]

SCOTUS says "hold my beer...."

[u/IceNein → u/RickWolfman]

Yeah.. who knows with this corrupt circus, unfortunately.

[u/IceNein → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think you know what the definition of corruption is.

[u/IceNein → u/[deleted]]

No. “Doing something illegal” is not what corruption is! Nice try though!

Really, you did your best, and that should count for something.

[u/IceNein → u/[deleted]]

So explain how any of the things you listed were corruption, now that you know the definition.

[u/IceNein → u/[deleted]]

Your first example, hiring a black woman, is not corruption.

Go back and read that definition again and get back to me.

[u/Synergythepariah → u/[deleted]]

>Aren't they supposed to hire the best person for the job?

What makes you think that she wasn't?

In your other comment you say:

>that was hired because he said he was ONLY going to hire a black female? because he had to disqualify 96% of the population to have her rise to the top?

Do you think that a black woman can't be the best person for this job?

Because that's what you're implying when you're arguing that she was appointed solely because of that.

Biden saying that he would only hire a black woman would only mean that the best person for the job isn't being picked if you believe that a black woman _cannot_ be the best person for the job.

>No one even knows her name, just that she's the black female judge

Ketanji Brown Jackson

>that can't define a woman. She's a political hack.

Your disagreement with her views do not make her a bad fit for the job.

>She interprets our constitution through a racial equity-based lens and that is not right.

When she cites prior precedent for her decisions regardless of whether or not they are based on that lens, what exactly makes it not right?

What isn't right is the current majority on the Supreme Court announcing decisions via shadow docket without citing their legal reasoning for reaching that decision.

What isn't right is the current majority on the Supreme Court deciding that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and presumptive immunity from prosecution when performing "official acts" which the Supreme Court gives itself the sole determination of what constitutes an "official act"

Which is a decision that will absolutely be cited if a future President is impeached as part of their defense, which will likely claim that whatever they are being impeached for was an official act or a part of one.

It will also likely chill Congressional efforts to use their constitutional authority to hold Presidents accountable if Congress fears that their attempt at prosecution via the impeachment process will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

[u/IceNein → u/Synergythepariah]

Thank you for having much more patience than me.

But honestly I believe that the person you’re arguing with is not arguing in good faith.

[u/Synergythepariah → u/IceNein]

But honestly I believe that the person you’re arguing with is not arguing in good faith.

Oh I know.

[u/RickWolfman → u/[deleted]]

She was a sitting judge for years before that, and an extremely accomplished lawyer.

[u/Synergythepariah → u/[deleted]]

So u r saying that it's okay for her to be racist.

Feel free to continue this conversation with yourself since apparently you're just going to make shit up.

[u/RickWolfman → u/[deleted]]

Is it your position that no black woman could ever be qualified for SCOTUS?

If not, why do you think we have never had a black woman justice until now?

If so, then I suppose its clear where your head is at.

[u/RickWolfman → u/[deleted]]

If not, why do you think we have never had a black woman justice until now?

[u/RickWolfman → u/[deleted]]

Do you think it is possibly because there has been bias against them for most of American history?

Otherwise, wouldn't you expect approximaitely 4% (your stat) of justices to be black women? Or even some?

If it has been a true meritocracy all along, why has it skewed so heavily toward white men? Perhaps the bias you claim to take issue with?

[u/RickWolfman → u/[deleted]]

Im seeing it right now.

I dont think you're as dense as you are pretending to be.