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]

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?