The problem is who decides what hate speech is. Ira Glasser has good point here: https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...
My counter to "who decides what hate speech is" - we need to actively figure it out. We can't sit back and say "it's too hard to decide" so we should tolerate all speech either by decision or inaction.
Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide.
> Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide.
Having the government decide what people are and are not allowed to say sounds a lot more dangerous to me. That’s how you end up with an official state religion and all other beliefs are outlawed, or you you end up with not being allowed to talk about being gay in public without fear of being stoned to death.
No we don't.
So why is some speech that hurts people banned, while other speech that hurts people is allowed? This should be the test for what counts as hate speech. Can you call the press "the enemy of the people" if that leads to journalists getting hurt? Can you call certain demographic groups a threat to society if that leads people to take action against those groups? Is it only the people who stormed the Capitol who are guilty of that, or also the politicians and others who encouraged them?
There is always going to be some limit to free speech. The question is: is that line in the right place? Does it need to be moved one way or the other? Does it allow speech that endangers lives? Does it ban speech that doesn't? That has to be a constant evaluation.
(That said, I regret banning communication apps. I'd rather see people be held accountable for the things they say on those apps. By the law, not by corporations.)
There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Still supports my point: there are limits to free speech when it involves inciting violence (or other lawless action).
And there's still also libel laws which make lies illegal in some cases. Though I believe that's a civil rather than criminal issue.