Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people.
Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used to silence people.
Really because all the people I've seen who bitch about both the lack of their freedom to speak and of being accused of hate speech never shut up, in fact it's seemingly their entire career now to make public appearances at venues and complain about how silenced they are, into hot microphones, for an audience.
I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly. However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned within proximity of each other:
That is mainly relevant in a U.S. context, whereas we’re talking about the EU in this thread. Unlike the U.S., several EU countries do indeed make it a crime to express certain opinions.
I have an example in mind, a very recent one, in which case it was indeed the government abusing hate speech laws to silence critics. Ask Greta Thunberg.
This is poorly done. If you're banned from doing something for a long time for unfair reasons, then the unfair reasons are rectified and you can actually do it, people will still feel brainwashed to treat you as before even though they never actually wanted to.
To just think that a bunch of people not liking something means that something is inherently bad is missing the context for why those people think something is bad, and who told them to think that.
If a billion people think you're an asshole for no objective reason, then you are just doing something they are emotional about.
Free speech does not mean the first amendment. I have a feeling people here would be a bit upset if the local mosque started executing people for blasphemy: look ma no government involved!
This kind of attitude is of course why the government is more than happy to have megacorporations in control of our public square who they can then push to implement the censorship they want.
Of course unless you are trying to win an internet argumet about free speech with a gotcha that makes you feel smart then you will realize that free speech doesn't just mean preventing the government from directly interfering with your speech but is a much broader concept.
Social control, 'showing the door', is abused to silence dissidents.
Plenty of methaforical ideological death marches on different topics could have been avoided by social gatekeepers not having the social power to silence their friends or party co-members.
Pretending the question is really about someone being rude is patronizing by XKCD.
The concept of 'showing the door' is fine for practical reasons but the other present at the party need to follow in protest on any just so slightly transgression of power.
So now when authoritarianism and racism are in fashion again in ”the West”, those political movements that oppose it are in a quite bad spot, since freedom of thought and expression have been turned down to do a shortsighted delay of the shift in the first place.
That XKCD, ironically but not intentionally ironically, starts off by claiming the opponent (the "asshole") is conflating the first amendment with free speech rights, then goes on to conflate the first amendment with free speech rights in service of limiting someone's speech.
Maybe it's easier to see if you're not American and thus aren't covered by the first amendment.
