Hate Speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment, and we get to define the word hate. - Modern Day leftist.
Drawing a cartoon of Mohammad is not hate speech. Here’s how you get around it. “Drawing Mohammad makes me feel closer to Allah”
And there is a very broad and distinct line between being a journalist and being a biased hack. But the hacks still cling to the illusion that they are part of the "press".
Larry flint's extremely vile anti-Christian cartoons are not hate speech.
This Larry Flint Libel is not hate speech, the SCOTUS said so.
But a cartoon of MO-HAM-MED is? Should we all cower in the corner in fear of those who follow HE-WHO-SHOULD-NOT-BE-PORTRAYED?
Exactly. Hate Speech was the camel’s nose under the tent to destroy freedom of speech.
Anyone who controls the allowed definition of “words” can control the proper emotions embedded into children. It is Wittgenstein’s philosophy which Marxists have used for 100 years to move us “progressively” to “thinking” correctly (to be an irrational ideologue).
Dialectics have been essential to freedom and Truth in Western Civ. It is why we have the US Constitution-—Profound (educated) debate of ALL ideas by brilliant (Classically educated/Bible) minds. Thus, more “freedom of speech”, the more Truth/God/Virtue is allowed since Virtue allows Excellence and flourishing and creativity.
Obscenity never was protected “speech” (until after the 60s)-—it is puerile and ends the mature debate of ideas and detracts from civility (maturity) and debases human beings and encourages puerile, addictive, destructive behaviors.