>>/9000/
There is no such thing as "hate speech." Another way of saying this is that all speech is protected speech. We've cucked to that somewhat in our application of dumb corner-cases like "can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theatre."
Don't think I'm in support of that. But there's a difference between "FIRE!" and "FIRE! EVERYBODY, RUN!!!" The second can be considered fraud -- people paid for that movie.
Even though I feel that way, I still hate it. ALL speech is protected speech.
You may not understand how important that really is. People get visits by police and are arrested for saying things online in the U.K. that might upset somebody. Mean things on the internet is a crime.
ALL speech is protected speech. This is for everybody. If an idea is painful for you to consider, it's because you are resisting the change; you are resisting growth.
Soon as you let the government determine what speech is applicable and what speech is not -- you control the notion of an idea. How did things get so bad? What has television media done to the nature of "truth" and people's willingness to seek it? What do they seek to control?
What is a slave?
"Don't you see? The whole purpose of newspeak is to make thought-crime impossible! You see, it will be impossible to think improper thoughts, as there would be no words by which to express it."
-- George Orwell, 1984 (paraphrased by me from memory)
Our founding fathers did an awesome job: making it nearly impossible for a two party or a many party or a no party system from removing amendments -- via just how hard they are to happen thanks to the rules of the constitution. Passing a new one, is another matter...
However, they made a fatal mistake in making the courts power too great. You understand it's supposed to be a system of "checks and balances" -- but do you also understand that a divided house cannot function? Always needs to be a tie-breaker. In our US constitution, this becomes the judicial branch. While they can't make new rules (out-right...), they do get to interpret between the rules. They also are able to interpret the meaning of the constitution.
We've had an executive branch out of control since Andrew Jackson (Democrat) invented the modern day executive order which allows the elected president basically to pass laws. Jackson did this to kill a bunch of indians without ruining the perceived honor of some senators.
But the Judicial branch can still strike-down executive orders. They are the tie-breaker. Maybe that wasn't such a bad idea, after all?
Free speech is more important than you may realize. Why do you think [they] invented "hate speech?"
Who decides what is "hate speech?"
Who watches the watchers?