I think you misunderstand the point of hate speech laws, it’s not to not hear it, its because people rightly recognize that spreading ideas in itself can be dangerous given how flawed human beings are and how some ideas can incite people towards violence.

The idea that all ideas are harmless and spreading them to others has no effect is flat out divorced from reality.

Spreading the idea that others are less than human and deserve to die is an act of violence in itself, just a cowardly one, one step divorced from action. But one that should still be illegal in itself. It’s the difference between ignoring Nazis and hoping they go away and going out and punching them in the teeth.

Except that they’ve been largely unsuccessful at the legal level. Courts in every western country recognizes the valid right to protest Israel and the actions of the Israeli government and expressly does not consider that anti-Semitic or hate speech.

There have been a few minor edge cases in some countries around controversial slogans like ‘From the River to the Sea’, and directly expressing support for organizations like Hamas, but by and large hate speech laws have not been abused. They’re mostly used to shut down and arrest neo Nazis and xenophobic rioters.

Israeli propaganda money is much better spent on convincing business leaders and the public at large that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic than it is at trying to convince constitutional lawyers.

Ah, you’re so terminally online that you brand anyone who mildly disagrees with you a ‘bot’.

Tho fair point about the EDL.

At the societal level with hate speech laws you can’t use bots though. You’re going to have to waste the courts time by wasting real people’s time dragging them in front of judges for protest actions. Eventually the courts will just make it a fine that police can quickly issue.

The UK is the weird outlier but there is still a defense of truth in the UK. The difference is that the person accusing you of defamation doesn’t have to prove that you’re wrong and you do have to prove that you’re right.

These are mostly incidents of people publicly expressing support for Hamas, and being arrested for expressing support for a designated terrorist organization, and pretty much all confined to the UK, which has some of the weakest individual protections in the EU / western world.

They also don’t have Nazi parades down their streets in 2024.

Those would not be considered hate speech laws in other countries, just normal no-uttering-threats laws. Hate Speech laws typically protect against inciting hatred or violence against an identifiable group, actually uttering threats is typically a different broader law.

In which countries is that the case?

It’s Twitter, there are no communities, what are you talking about?

You’re talking about the one instance of Germany ruling that a single controversial slogan was hate speech?

Free speech as in, the freedom to express valid political speech and criticize the current government? Sure. Easy.

Free speech as in, the ability to say whatever the hell you want, including threatening, harassing, or inciting hatred and genocide against people? No. No you cannot.

No they don’t. The argument is that good actors get overly punished for doing things that shouldn’t be illegal yet are. You’re not even being logically consistent in your arguments.

Completely and utterly false.

Every single western country outside of America has hate speech laws without issue.

A) they are not that open ended and subjective

B) the idea that laws can’t be open ended, subjective, or governed through intent and spirit of the law, is only the case in the dumbass American legal system that has been intentionally ruined by simple minded Republicans, which insist on every edge case being explicitly covered by a law or legislation because they know that makes it impossible to effectively write laws or govern.

Pretty much all high level languages do because they’re already designed around automatic memory management.