[nickthemagicman]

I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality.

Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ?

How easy is it to label something as hateful and ban it? Very easy.

That's the flaw in your argument, the human element.

The revolution to create America had violent and hateful speech towards the British crown.

Private companies can do what they want, but in public sphere the parent poster was right free speech exists to enable dissent, not support the status quo.

[cies]

> I would argue that your argument is nice in theory, nonsense in practicality.

Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places. So it's already practical.

> Who decides what speech is hateful or violent and should be limited? You, me, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un ?

This gets coded in law and jurisprudence and gets enforced by police. Just like any other unlawful acts. Again: this is already how it works in most developed democracies.

> How easy is it to label something as hateful and ban it? Very easy.

See my other comment about pesticide. Please answer that question. Inciting hate/violence is quite easy to detect in practice.

> That's the flaw in your argument, the human element.

Please explain. I dont get it. It's all down to culture, true. But that does not prevent it from being pretty much universal.

> The revolution to create America had violent and hateful speech towards the British crown.

Yes. Which was behaving intolerant and violent in the first place!! Just like now with police brutality in the US: so much violence from them that expressing/inciting hate toward them becomes acceptable in my book.

> Private companies can do what they want, but in public sphere the parent poster was right free speech exists to enable dissent, not support the status quo.

Dissent have no need to exist when there is no oppression/violence/exploitation/marginalization. Hence dissent is the best example of "intolerance of the intolerant". Thanks.

[LiNeXT]

> Just like now with police brutality in the US: so much violence from them that expressing/inciting hate toward them becomes acceptable in my book.

So it is you, personally, that is the arbiter of what is and isn't OK? Does your own repeated expression of intolerance for the fundamentals of free speech in this thread similarly allow me to mark "expressing/inciting hate" toward you as "acceptable" as well? Where does this kind of reasoning end?

[luckylion]

> Well, it already is encoded in law. Most countries prohibit hate speech and/or inciting violence, while most people consider that free speech is protected in those places.

Depends. Germany for example takes a similar route as Reddit does. If you're Turkish, you're allowed to say "Germans are a dog race" when the German parliament recognize the fact that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians (hey, fun fact, they're re-activating their ISIS-buddies to try again right now).

If a German said "Turks are a dog race", they'd be prosecuted.

Hate speech isn't outlawed, it's majority hate speech that's outlawed.

[_v7gu]

Isn't flamebait not allowed here?

[DrJones1098]

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. Millions of people all are arbitraily classified as Germans or Turks just because they were born in a geographical region... most of them did not participate and had zero connection to any genocides.

But their free speech can be infringed upon simply because they've been labeled a certain way by other human beings, no matter how accurate or inaccurate.

As much as we would like to censor speech that sounds horrible to us you can't because it's such a slippery slope.