Sure but there is a distinction between speech and action that needs to be recognised. In some countries there is talk about brining back the death penalty for certain crimes (The US is of course in the company of such human rights luminaries as Saudi Arabia and China in that respect) but such discussions are acceptable. Organising mob justice to kill suspected, or even convicted, criminals is not.
I can agree that neither should be bannable offences. Attacking people can be bannable offences but not attacking ideas/philosophies etc. What I wanted to highlight is the problem that what is considered hate speech and offensive is highly subjective. The same sentence which someone says is acceptable for one group can be considered hate speech when applied to another group. That means that it isn't the speech that the person is judging but how they view the people it is directed at. Such assumptions are dangerous since they assume that the judger's opinion is always correct. While that is a perfectly fine way to base one's own conduct, it is not a good way to create a framework for a society with differing views.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Sure but there is a distinction between speech and action that needs to be recognised. In some countries there is talk about brining back the death penalty for certain crimes (The US is of course in the company of such human rights luminaries as Saudi Arabia and China in that respect) but such discussions are acceptable. Organising mob justice to kill suspected, or even convicted, criminals is not.
I can agree that neither should be bannable offences. Attacking people can be bannable offences but not attacking ideas/philosophies etc. What I wanted to highlight is the problem that what is considered hate speech and offensive is highly subjective. The same sentence which someone says is acceptable for one group can be considered hate speech when applied to another group. That means that it isn't the speech that the person is judging but how they view the people it is directed at. Such assumptions are dangerous since they assume that the judger's opinion is always correct. While that is a perfectly fine way to base one's own conduct, it is not a good way to create a framework for a society with differing views.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~