I don't have a problem in theory with banning hate speech, the problem is who defines what is and isn't hate speech. Denying the Holocaust, obviously hate speech. Saying slavery was good, also hate speech. Is being pro-life hate speech against women though? I've heard that said many times recently. I've heard people on this forum say that opposing affirmative action is hate speech. Is questioning the economic impact of immigration hate speech? It's hard enough to draw a line in the first place, but it's especially hard in the current culture where people are trying to outdo each other in terms of being the most "privilege conscious" person in the room. It basically becomes a competition to see who can label the most speech as hateful.
Is holocaust denying so severe that it much be considered a criminal offence? I would think it's where moral stands as contrary to where the law should stand. I think speech and speech acts should be a criminal offence where they pose a likely threat of causing physical violence
