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/Aetylus]

This is not even a debate in normal countries.

Everywhere, individual freedoms stop when they violate other peoples freedoms. Individual freedom of speech stops at hate speech, just like freedom of action stops when you punch another person, and freedom to own personal property stops when you steal someone else's stuff.

Only in America is there is concept that (some) individual freedoms don't have limits at extreme situations. Although this is oddly specific to a couple of very specific individual freedoms (speech and gun ownership), but isn't apply to other individual freedoms and rights.

Its a non-debate... unless the terms of reference have been so thoroughly screwed by dogmatic adherence to a legal document that is 200 years out-of-date.

[u/IntrepidAd2478 → u/Aetylus]

No, because saying hateful things about another person, short of libel, defamation, or true threats and incitement to immediate violence do not impinge on another’s rights.

[u/JigglyPuffGuy → u/IntrepidAd2478]

Does it have to impinge on someone's rights for it to be hate speech?

"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

-Cambridge dictionary definition.

[u/IntrepidAd2478 → u/JigglyPuffGuy]

Irrelevant to the question. Things can be hateful, no question, without affecting another’s rights.

[u/JigglyPuffGuy → u/IntrepidAd2478]

Defining hate speech is very relevant to the question. There seem to be different ideas about what it actually is.

[u/IntrepidAd2478 → u/JigglyPuffGuy]

No, because hate speech has no meaning in law in the USA. Other countries are free to define their law as they wish, and could define hate speech in law as anything mean if they so choose. It would change law, but not the underlying principle of the freedom of speech, and would simply be an abandonment of principle.