[Permit]

I made no mention of free speech. I'm Canadian and support the significant mechanisms we have in place to combat hate speech!

My point is only that speech is not violence. One does not need to change the meaning of the word violence in order to place sensible restrictions on speech. It is a cheap rhetorical trick.

[Shoue]

It's intrinsically linked to "free speech" exemptions through being violent, because violence doesn't have to be physical, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's opening paragraph on violence[1]:

> Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened[4] or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."[5]

There's no doubt that hate speech _does_ commit psychological harm, for example, but the article contains way more nuance than I have time for in this post so I implore you to read the article -- "violence" is just not as simple and limited as physical harm.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

[parasense]

Violence huh?

That's what this conversation is devolving into, a fluidic interpretation of violence? Seems like a strawman argument; change the topic to violence, then argue a truism that violence is bad... all the while maintaining a pretend causal link between privacy and violence?

Sorry. Not. Persuasive.

That said, for the sake of civility and moving past this distractio... I will concede the point you seem so adamant to make, violence is not so simple. But again, not on-topic here, and it adds nothing to the conversation.