I keep seeing this sentiment in all the comments here. Can you show us an example of speech that is ambiguous in whether it is hate speech or not? I accept that everyone has a different opinion on a lot of topics, but I think on average we can discern hate speech from simple discussions and arguments.
> The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it. Some universities with policies that reflect the belief that trans women are women have acted on complaints about people who do nothing more than express a contrary view. In May, after students at Abertay University in Dundee reported that a student had said at a seminar that women have vaginas and men are stronger, the university launched an investigation.
Regardless of personal opinions on the topic, the fact that it gets this sort of is-it-or-isn't-it treatment in a major newspaper, on top of the seesawing behavior from universities described in the article itself, is a good indication that the topic's nature as "hate speech" or not is fairly ambiguous.
When everybody is participating in good faith, "I know it when I see it" obscenity test type stuff works fine. It's less obviously useful of a yardstick when there's a clear incentive to make bad faith claims against ideological or organizational rivals.
So this almost word for word reminds me of the moral panic of the 1990s about political correctness. “There is a professor, he is doing professor thing and he know a bunch about this subject but the students went after him and he wasn’t allowed to continue to teach and now we have less education.”
In reality in those cases there was almost no backlash and in fact everyone treated the professor with kid gloves while what he purported to have done was way worse and what the students had done was way overblown (see the Political Correctness of the excellent podcast called You Are Wrong About). So pardon me if I don’t buy this particular article/story line.
Sorry but how is this a case for debate??? This is not a matter of opinion, it's an extremely serious accusation that a foreign government institution caused a global catastrophe of historic proportions. Do you have the type of incredibly solid evidence that would take to back that type of accusation in court?? If you do, then go to court, if you don't then there's nothing to "debate" unless you are shopping for a defamation lawsuit that is what would be a fair and logical consequence to that type of baseless accusation. People abuse free speech because they are not facing the due legal consequences for all the defamation they incur on. But just because it's hard to prosecute so many offenders doesn't make it right or legal.
When the people who are championing this theory while presenting no evidence happen to also be very pro-white power, yeah it sure sounds like hate speech. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean you should go by it.
Have you never heard of the little boy who cried wolf? If 99% of the time when the things you say aren't even lies but just straight up rejection of reality altogether, yes your reputation as a truth teller might suffer.
