[rbanffy]

It's expected the ones less threatened and in a social dominant position have less fear of hate speech directed towards other populations or even to itself.

A more interesting question is at what point free speech ceases to be beneficial to society and starts reinforcing oppressive stereotypes or to direct hatred and marginalize minority or less dominant groups.

It is, however, understandable when groups that are consistently at risk are more suspicious at unrestricted speech being directed to them or others in similar conditions.

Speech may have undesired consequences.

[IanDrake]

So freedom of speech should be throttled by the speaker’s race and gender identity?

I’m reading your words, but can’t tell what you’re actually trying to say.

[rbanffy]

My point is that people who don't think they have any reason to fear directed hatred are the ones who support it while those who understand the power it has are the ones who fear it the most, in special the risk of it being used against them.

[IanDrake]

I don’t know anyone who supports hatred. I support free speech. The two are not identical, to suggest so is just propaganda aimed at limiting free speech.

[rbanffy]

Which brings us back to one of my original points: at which point hate speech or other kinds of weaponized speech cease to be deserving of protection. Should governments and corporations enjoy this right?

[IanDrake]

Thank you for that. Honesty in a conversation helps. Directly saying that you want to place limits on speech makes your position clear.

I believe the current limitation to speech strikes the right balance, so I don’t support new and subjective limits to speech, like “hate” speech.

I’m unclear what you’re asking about governments and corporations. Members of both already have special case restrictions on speech, mostly dealing with military and security.

But, generally speaking, any organizations is just a collective of people who have the right as individuals. So, if I understand your question, my answer is yes.