Free Speech is an idea that sounds reasonable. That is why it is the First Amendment to the American Constitution. It does however have limits. Keith Windschuttle explains - see Freedom of Speech: Does it have its limits? It is a way of finding truth, not a mechanism for defending lies or harassment. See the Harm Principle to know more.
James Schall, a Jesuit wrote On Hatred, saying inter alia that it is entirely right to hate things that should be hated.
Jews are very keen on labelling anything they don't like as hate but they keep
very quiet about Racists like the Very Reverend Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef, who was the
Chief Rabbi of Israel & full of hate. How do we know? See e.g.:-
Rabbi Ovadia
Yosef says Gentiles exist only to serve Jews
Zionist
Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef wishes death to all Palestinians - YouTube
Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs
Was the vicious old fool an exception? Given that Over Half A Million Attend Funeral Of Revered Racist Rabbi the answer has to be NO! He founded Shas, the seventh largest political party in Israel, where Racism isn't crime; it is main stream Public Policy.
On Hatred-
QUOTE
Both Testaments of Scripture contain passages in which we are admonished to hate something, like evil, but not to hate our brother. We are familiar, perhaps too familiar, with the adage: “To hate the sin but love the sinner.” This aphorism can easily leave the impression that my sin is floating out there totally independent of me, who, in the meantime, remains pure as the driven snow...........When Aristotle treats anger, itself a good thing, he talks about controlling or not controlling our passionate response to what is dangerous or wrong. We usually overdo it. But not to be angry at evil things is a vice. Some things ought to anger us.
Hatred is the emotional response to our recognition that some specific thing is wrong in the world. Tell me what you hate and I will tell you what you are. And if you tell me that you do not hate anything because nothing is wrong in the world, I have an even clearer picture of what you are – that is, hopelessly naďve.
Here, I am interested in the relatively new phenomenon known as “hate language.” Few things are potentially more pernicious, especially when governments and institutions get into the business of defining and enforcing it. “Hate language” and freedom of speech are clearly in bloody conflict with each other. The same folks who were once interested in pressing the limits of free speech – such that most anything could be said with impunity – are now the same people who, in control of the culture, want to suppress any speech not to their liking.
Where did this “hate language” business come from anyhow? Its origin was in the now largely successful endeavor to overturn the moral structure of civil society. Generally speaking, this transformation was accomplished through the deft usage of “rights talk.” What was once called, on rational grounds, a disorder or vice became first tolerated, then finally a “right.” Once it became a “right,” then for anyone to call it a sin or evil became a slander, an attack on transformed human dignity and pride........
At this juncture, “hate language” arrives on the scene. Since the law now claims that both marital arrangements are “the same,” we no longer are free to state that they are not the same. It causes pain to people to hear that what they do is or is not a marriage. The very statement that they are not the same is judged a civic disorder that must, in the name of preventing turmoil, be forbidden. We can find ourselves ostracized or put in jail for stating what is true and giving arguments for it. Free speech, which was designed to state the truth of things, is no longer permitted. Truth is now what endangers society.
When this situation is universalized, we find that we have to provide places where people are protected from even hearing anything that would question either the rightness of their own choices or the civil law that has now claimed jurisdiction over all of our speech. A most odious feature of totalitarian societies was to set up listening posts or to have children tell what their own parents said in private. This same phenomenon has arrived among us. It is now gussied up in the image of protecting the victims from the hatred of those who refuse to accept the new “rights” regime that insists that its law is the highest and only law in the land........
“Hate laws” ultimately stem from the modern democratic state’s endeavor to change human nature.
UNQUOTE
Father Schall is on the ball. He does not say that the anti-hate operatives are Left Wing rogues, Marxists, Lenin's Useful Idiots or inmates of the Lunatic Fringe but I do.
Hate Speech ex Wiki
Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.
Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]
International
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.[11] On 3 May 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.[12] Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]
Harm Principle ex Wiki
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[1] An equivalent was earlier stated in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 as, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."