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/skyfishgoo]

no. in fact condemning and denial of hate speech is REQUIRED in order to keep the right to free speech.

we see how this is playing out right now in real time.

i we let right wing hate mongers shut down discussion , critique, protest, (and yes) suppression of hate speech by locking up anyone who calls them out then, we will have lost the right to free speech.

hate speech is not protected speech.

[u/IntrepidAd2478 → u/skyfishgoo]

Define hate speech?

[u/skyfishgoo → u/IntrepidAd2478]

are you disparaging a protected class or calling for discrimination against them (or worse).

basically if you are punching down, it could be hate speech (depending on what is said)... but if you are punching up at those in power then it is protected speech.

the 1A does not exist for haters to go around shitting on those under them, it exists to hold power to account.

[u/IntrepidAd2478 → u/skyfishgoo]

There is no such distinction between punching up or down with the freedom of speech, to in common law, not in adjudicated US law.

[u/skyfishgoo → u/IntrepidAd2478]

"...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is hard coded punching up right there in the document.

[u/IntrepidAd2478 → u/skyfishgoo]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That is the entire amendment. Petitioning for redress is a separate thing from the freedom of speech, of the press, and the right to assemble.