And this is an example of why speech should not be criminalized, even hate speech, unfortunately. Perceptions of what counts as hate speech are subject to change with geopolitical issues that may or may not actually make said speech “hate speech.” Today the nazis are antisemites, tomorrow any critic of Isreal’s reaction to Hamas’ terrorism in Oct is too. You don’t have to like what they (hypothetical people) say but freedom of speech is important, short of actual calls to (violent) action themselves words should not be punishable by legal action. Fight them with your words, show others your way is better, but remember what you do to others can easily be turned back on you in short order.
in the example you mention, one thing is antisemitism, the other is not
the fact they are saying it is doesnt make it so
While true, if people are getting locked up for what you and I agree is not, there is functionally no difference between “is and gets locked up” and “isn’t but still gets locked up.” See what I mean? Saying is one thing, legal action is another. If one can limit speech, “one” being the ruling class/party, then anything they decide to limit can therefore be legally limited and they can turn it like the above article. If the ruling class is instead limited themselves in their abilty to limit speech, yes nazis can say “jews bad because nonsense,” and that sucks, but then you can also say “israel bad because genocide,” even if the ruling class does not want you to.
Case in point, has anyone been arrested for this in America yet? Not that I’m aware of. And that isn’t a bad thing.
yes because it is being used as a tool by a totalitarian government, totalitarian governments would do that regardless of how anyone feels about free speech.
does not mean letting nazis and other criminal scum roam around is a good idea in a free country.
