I’m pretty sure that whatever parent would come up with, I could shoot full of holes, yeah. Their statement was that some “opinions” (their scare quotes, not mine) are dangerous and should not be tolerated. This is far different than fighting words or other existing carve outs.
For example, antisemitism and homophobia are two concepts that the parent thinks should be banned. But that right away leads to contradictions. If I ask you a question, “Should orthodox rabbis marry gay couples?” your answer could be deemed as either antisemitic (“yes”), or homophobic(“no”). Your best bet is to stay silent on that question!
So, I do understand not wanting to allow directly threatening speech on a specific group. It’s just such a tricky thing to codify such a ban without inadvertently stifling freedom of thought and opinion. What you really do is hone the dog-whistling capabilities of those who would organize to commit violence.
Actually, it is not hate speech to disagree with the Jewish religion or specific customs (that is protected instead by freedom of religion, which is a different argument, and an important one, but probably not with the same weight as basic personhood). That's not what people usually talk about when they mention antisemitism. Antisemitism, taken in the Nazi way, is the 'disagreement' over whether Jewish people as an ethnic group deserve rights as people or citizens.
Edit: But even with that said, I agree restrictions to speech should rather be too few than to many, and too narrow rather than too broad. Which is why I think the line should never remotely try to cover every degree of racism or xenophobia at all. I could be convinced of the need to restrict public calls for genocide, for example, though.
For example, antisemitism and homophobia are two concepts that the parent thinks should be banned. But that right away leads to contradictions. If I ask you a question, “Should orthodox rabbis marry gay couples?” your answer could be deemed as either antisemitic (“yes”), or homophobic(“no”). Your best bet is to stay silent on that question!
So, I do understand not wanting to allow directly threatening speech on a specific group. It’s just such a tricky thing to codify such a ban without inadvertently stifling freedom of thought and opinion. What you really do is hone the dog-whistling capabilities of those who would organize to commit violence.