[Andrew_nenakhov]

There are no victims of hate speech. There are victims of hate crimes, like murders, rapes and beatings. Speech doesn't cause physical harm, violent actions do. Thus, violent actions must be stopped, not words.

Oh, and if you will claim that speech insites actions, i ask you one thing: who determines what hate is? In Russia, talking about corruption and opposing Putin is extremism and hate speech.

[SketchySeaBeast]

If a mobs screams racist obscenities at someone is that a hate crime?

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Screaming anything is not a crime.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Well, that's not true. Death threats are. And my point was that, even though it may not be a crime, there's still someone who would be a victim.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

> Well, that's not true.

If you want to argue that some spoken words can be prosecuted in some jurisdictions, chose another opponent. I state my personal opinion that anything spoken should be protected under free speech rights, and even the death threats. Yes, because words do not kill. Killing requires action, and actions must be stopped, not screaming.

[SketchySeaBeast]

You didn't say "shouldn't be a crime" you said "is not a crime". And I'm not saying that words directly kill. I'm saying words have their own power that can absolutely hurt. Speaking words is an action and it can cause harm.

[Andrew_nenakhov]

Politicians can declare anything a crime, and same act can be legal and criminal in places spaced 2 meters apart, that's why there is no point arguing about that. Regarding speech "crimes", see my earlier comment about Putin's Russia.

Thus, sane people MUST fight against criminalising any kind of speech, because speech is not a crime. Just like sane people fought against slavery, segregation and Holocaust, all of which were legal.