>hate speech != speech professing homosexuality I have never come across anything Congressman Paul has said that is remotely close to qualifying ads hate speec

>hate speech != speech professing homosexuality I have never come across anything Congressman Paul has said that is remotely close to qualifying ads hate speech. He is actually all about granting individuals rights and freedoms. Can you explain? But anyways, is it really a false equivalence, or is the false equivalence based on newly-invented terms? In other words, even if we both agree we dont like what currently qualifies as hate speech; if we start the process of compartmentalizing speech into acceptable and unacceptable baskets, what is going to stop it? After they finish with Ron Paul and libertarians, who is next up to be silenced? Now you may think, 'they're just crushing a the alt right and moving on towards libertarians.' "I won't protest because I find the alt right repulsive, and I am not a libertarian." So tell me, when is the time to protest? When "there's no one left to speak for me?" To me, we need to protect free speech, not to protect hate speech, but to protect the right to say things unacceptable to say, even if your government, or Google, or anyone, doesn't want you to say it. If you care about the 90%, this fundamental right will always be one of the strongest safe-guards possible against authoritarianism.