Your definition makes no sense. "We should kill people from country X" isn't hate speech by your definition - it doesn't imply anyone is any less human than anyone else.
"should kill people" = "those people aren't deserving to live" = 1) either all humans are not deserving to live or 2) those specific humans are not deserving to live = if 2) country X are being dehumanized.
if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, if 2) ok, you've publicly proclaimed that you don't think you're human which then let me add a second rule. Only humans have right to speech.
These interpretations can also be flipped around. One could argue that not supporting capital punishment dehumanizes murder victims and their families. Then some tough on crime politician gets elected and speech against capital punishment is banned.
Remember that whenever you create a tool to silence people, you are building a weapon that can be used against yourself. As recent elections have shown, sane politicians aren't always in power. The only long term solution is to build a system that works even when your enemies are in charge.
Then you have such an extremely non-mainstream definition of hate speech that it was borderline intellectually dishonest of you not to come out with that example from the beginning.
Even in Europe, which has much stricter bans on hate speech and xenophobia than the US does, and where capital punishment is banned, claiming capital punishment should be unbanned is legal.
> if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself,
This is circular reasoning. If we've already established that I might not think all humans deserve to live, you can't claim that thinking I deserve to live means I think I'm more human than everyone else.
It's perfectly possible to think someone deserves to live less than I do while still thinking they're human.
Such tortured logic is hardly "direct line implicit", which is exactly why your definition doesn't work.
It does indeed imply just that. You're abstracting the impulse to eliminate other groups away from that fact that it comes from a perspective of supremacy: the idea that your type of human is more deserving of existing than a foreign human.
Yes, but thinking you deserve to exist more than someone else has nothing to do with whether you think they're human.
My girlfriend's dog is very sweet and loyal. I think it deserves to exist more than a (human) child molester does. This doesn't mean I think dogs are human.
You're defining dehumanization biologically, when in usage the term is overloaded with another definition that refers to depriving others of dignity, individuality, and other positive human qualities.
To say that another doesn't deserve to be recognized with those positive human qualities is at the root of saying that they don't deserve to exist.
You're being confronted with a truth about the clear definition of hate speech, and you're resisting moving forward because you intuitively sense the contradiction that your own belief might pose to that. This is where you need to be brave and get past that.
Huh? That's totally out of left field and not even related to the discussion we were having. How can you possibly have any idea what my motives are for this discussion or what my own beliefs are about anything else?
if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, if 2) ok, you've publicly proclaimed that you don't think you're human which then let me add a second rule. Only humans have right to speech.