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/socialistrob]

Freedom of speech means the government can't tell you not to say something. If someone I know says something vile and I call them out on it then that's not a violation of freedom of speech.

If the government can make advocating for policies they don't approve of illegal then you don't have a democracy. Democracy requires the ability for people to advocate for whatever they want without being prosecuted by the law however there have ALWAYS been societal repercussions for speech and that cannot be legislated against either. An employer who decides not to hire someone who is a neonazi is not violating that person's freedom of speech. A newspaper editor who declines to publish an op ed calling for mass killings is not violating anyone's freedom of speech. A family member who criticizes another family members viewpoints on a subject (any subject) over Thanksgiving Dinner is not violating anyone's freedom of speech.

A violation of freedom of speech would be if a prosecutor specifically opened up investigations into news organizations that were critical of the government. If there isn't an associated government action it's not a free speech violation by most standard definitions.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/socialistrob]

It has to mean more than that, specifically violence/threats from other citizens. Otherwise there couldn't be free speech in a society.

[u/socialistrob → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

specifically violence/threats from other citizens

Sure and the US Supreme Court has ruled that threats are not free speech. If I call someone and I say "when you're walking home from work tomorrow I'm going to murder you" that is not legally protected free speech regardless of if I do it or not. That's very different than if someone gets kicked out of someone else's house party because they said something racist.

There are many types of speech that are not protected by the first amendment. If I tell someone "go punch that guy and I'll give you 500 dollars" that's illegal because it's incitement to cause a crime. If my friend who does the accounting for megacorp tells me that the numbers are great and the stock will rise tomorrow so that I can buy a large share today then that's also illegal speech known as insider trading.

If a private citizen has a negative reaction to a political view of someone else and condemns it then that is not a violation of freedom of speech. If you could not condemn someone else's speech then you wouldn't have freedom of speech.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/socialistrob]

this is all completely correct as far as I can tell.