That is a very important question. But it is not the same question as to whether ‘freedom of speech’ requires us to tolerate hate speech.
how can you have free speech when you eliminate certain speech?
Hypothetical: I quarrel with Jimmie Sample, who lives near me. So for the next several days I wait outside Jimmie’s home every morning. When he comes out I follow him down the street yelling over and over “Jimmie’s a liar! Jimmie’s a thief! Jimmie Sample never pays his debts! Jimmie Sample beats his wife! Jimmie’s a stupid, stupid man!” ( Add other insults, including obscene language.)
When Jimmie complains I cite my rights to free speech.
Hypothetical question. Should I get away with it or does Jimmie have reasonable grounds to call the cops on me?
If the latter then you agree to at least
some limits on freedom of speech.
how would you define free speech?
Freedom of speech under the law means you can’t be prosecuted or punished for what you say unless you commit a breach of the law in how you go about it.
I’m free to
think all those things about Jimmie Sample, but not free to chase him down the street screaming at him; and not free to (for example) accuse him of beating his wife or cheating on his taxes unless I can offer reasonable evidence.
what do you consider hate speech?
Rough practical attempt at an answer:
Actively encouraging bigotry against and / or advocating maltreatment of a person or group because of their group membership, especially if it’s a group they were born into such as national origin, ethnic origin or gender: or a group defined by their beliefs such as a religion or religious denomination.
what do you want eliminated?
I would avoid the word ‘eliminated’. I want it to be illegal to indulge in hate speech. I want the targets of hate speech to have some useful legal recourse.
what if someone disagrees with your or anyone’s definition?
who becomes the arbitrator?
I leave that to the lawmakers.
