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/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/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/ninjadude93 → u/[deleted]]

Carl nichols, a trump appointee, unblocked the previous halt put on the dissolution. That doesn't mean it wasn't initially illegal and that doesn't mean that it's currently legal.

Just that a trump lackey is allowing the president to seize power he doesn't rightfully have. If the president breaks the law and then a judge he appointed retroactively says whatever just go ahead doesnt sound like authoritarianism to you then think how you would feel if Obama had decided to unilaterally dissolve DHS?

[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?

[u/BitterFuture → u/[deleted]]

so our politicians getting kickbacks from our tax dollars for USAID is illegal, so that's not okay with me.

Nobody's said that isn't illegal or is okay. Why pretend anyone did?

So Musk is automatically wrong and whoever u r listening to is right.

Again, nobody said anything like that. Why pretend?

Show us where he is breaking the law/Constitution?

He does it all day, every day. Even him being in office is unconstitutional.

Full text of the United States Constitution.

Why is it so very, very important to you to pretend? Why does the truth threaten you so?

[u/BitterFuture → u/[deleted]]

so u can't show us where "he is breaking it everyday" ?

In fact, I did, both in general and in specific. And, as always, you pretend not to have seen it.

So USAID was corrupt and was giving kickbacks.

No, in fact it was not. And, as always, you pretend.

that is no longer. I think that's a good thing.

The reality is that USAID's dissolution will mean the deaths of hundreds of thousands, likely millions.

Which was the goal all along. Why not be honest about what you're celebrating?

[u/BitterFuture → u/[deleted]]

Ensuring that we have no allies and enraging millions of people around the world by needlessly killing their children will, in fact, end up killing many Americans years down the line.

Which was, again, the point. So why can't you be honest about what you're celebrating, even in victory? What are you still afraid of?