So hate speech is not free speech when the consequences are severe? The neoconservative movement, for instance, is accused of faking evidence of WMDs in order

So hate speech is not free speech when the consequences are severe? The neoconservative movement, for instance, is accused of faking evidence of WMDs in order to get us into a serious war and causing a massive death toll. That accusation is that their speech was lies in order to get us into war. But they are center-right interventionists, many of whom were liberals before 9/11. Is neoconservatism hate speech? Pro-life protestors claim that abortions in the US have murdered approximately the population of Spain since Roe v Wade. They also point out that Denmark has eliminated babies born with Down's syndrome. Is the pro-choice position hate speech? I think a fair minded person can draw a distinction between these things, the point of politics is coexisting with people who aren't particularly fair minded and are going to try and game the system. The idea of free speech is that the simplest way to prevent gaming is not giving them a system to game, especially not one as ambiguous and dangerous as hate speech rules.