The real issue comes down to how “Hate Speech” is defined. If it’s “words I don’t like” then that is tyrannical. If it’s “You can’t incite people to commit violent acts on peaceful people without consequences” that is a completely valid definition. I’d like to see more of the context surrounding the interview before passing judgment on a single sentence.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Stopping incitement to violence is just another excuse for tyranny. War mongering politicians and media opinions already do it on a daily basis, but they're not the target. Laws can't be fuzzy and "incitement to violence" is very much up to (political) interpretation, and that's why they push that angle. Don't buy it.