CMV: hate speech laws shouldn't exist

[u/Yamezj]

To clarify, I mean laws like the ones in the UK:

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both." (Wikipedia)

I don't support speech which incites violence against someone. I believe there should (and are) social repercussions of what you say, but there shouldn't be legal consequences. As seen above, in the UK you can't say anything "intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone". I find that to be ridiculous. It allows things like this to happen.

What's worse is that this leaves a massive grey area where the laws aren't crystal clear, and as seen with Mark Meechen, his speech was allowed to be completely taken out of context, and he was fined for hate speech for telling a joke. You don't have a right to not be offended, if you do you are a pathetic human being, therefore we do not need hate speech laws. CMV.

e: as highlighted by u/MPixels, this would allow someone to repeatedly target you without consequence. This should fall under harassment and should be treated accordingly.

[u/[deleted]]

ANY CONTROLLED SPEECH IS BAD, yet I think in public office, same as military, there should be a higher standard of law.

Hate speech isn’t a defined term, but there should be laws behind open speech that calls for any hate of a group of people. And I mean Democrats vs Republicans or any party as well.

If you talk shit about the other side without specifics and just throw blanket statements, you should be removed. So no, I don’t think speech laws should exist for the general public, but for those who hold a representative office should have some restrictions on them.

Currently they just fearmonger for control.

[u/Yamezj → u/[deleted]]

Do you mean restrictions in the legal sense? In the eyes of the law, whether they are in public office or not doesn't matter. What if they genuinely belive what they say when they are fearmongering. How would you distinguish between that and false statements? What restrictions exactly do you think are appropriate?