Hate speech is what exactly? No one is harmed, already there's freedom of speech, doesn't mean people should get arrested, so It's only when the speech is causing harm to someone that precaution should be taken.
I feel like a lot of these conversations go wrong from the start , because everybody throws around the term gate speech.... like it has a one kind universal, agreed upon definition, but really it doesn't at all, what one person calls hate, another person calls an opinion they simply don't like, and that is exactly why I think we need to be careful before we start saying speech alone, without any real world consequence, should land someone in handcuffs...
Free speech was never meant to only protect the things we agree with or the things that make us comfortable, because truthfully, if it only protected, nice speech, it wouldn't really be free, it would just be permission with conditions attached, the real test of free speech is whether it can hold space for the ugly, the offensive, the things that make our skin crawl, without immediately criminalizing the person who had actually said it, that is so uncomfortable to accept, I know, but it is the gospel truth.
Now, does that mean hate speech should just exist freely with zero consequences? No, not at all, and this is where I think the nuance matters, there's a difference between someone expressing a hateful opinion and someone using speech as a direct tool to incite violence, harassment, or actual harm against a person or group, if your words are pushing people to physically hurt someone, if it is inciting a mob, if it is creating a real, tangible danger, that's no longer just speech, that is a weapon wearing the costume of an opinion, that's where the law should step in, not before.
But arresting someone simply because they said something distasteful without any real harm attached then that sets a scary precedent if you ask me, because who decides what qualifies as hate speech versus what is just an unpopular or uncomfortable opinion? Today it might be used to silence actual bigotry, but tomorrow that same law could be twisted to silence dissent.... criticism of leadership, or even religious and cultural expression that someone in power just doesn't like and so on...... History has shown us time and time again that laws meant to protect people can very easily become tools to oppress the same people they claimed to protect.
I also think there's a lazy comfort in wanting to criminalize speech instead of confronting it. It's easier to say arrest them than to actually engage, challenge, and dismantle the ideas behind hateful speech through conversation, education, and social consequence, cancel culture, public accountability, boycotts, these things already exist and often do a better job of correcting hateful behaviour than criminal charges would, because they hit people where it actually stings, reputation and relevance, without opening the door to government overreach.
So no, I don't think mere hate speech, without harm, should be a criminal offence, the moment harm enters the picture, that is a different conversation entirely, and the law should absolutely step in then, but policing words simply because they are distasteful? that's a slippery slope I am not comfortable normalizing, because the same power used to silence hate today can just as easily be turned around to silence truth tomorrow..
Image Is Geneated With ChatGpt