> At first it was "repeated harassment" and now it's "incite to dox and harass." It's always been an accusation about pattern of behavior, which includes multi

> At first it was "repeated harassment" and now it's "incite to dox and harass." It's always been an accusation about pattern of behavior, which includes multiple ("repeated") events that happened over the past (if I recall correctly) ~2 years. Some of these events involved Crowder using hate speech, which is not "calling people nasty names". Hate speech restrictions and laws are generally defined to target speech/writing/conduct/etc that incites violence or prejudicial behavior against a protected class. Calling some a well known slur is (probably) just being an asshole. When people talked about Crowder's hate speech, they aren't talking about him using a specific word; they're talking about how his rhetoric seems to be having the effect of inciting parts of his audience to attack Maza through his phone. > It's now okay for John Oliver to go after organizations Yes, of course it is. Attacking organizations (public or private) on matters of public interest is one of the primary goals of protecting the freedoms of speech and the press. > he very clearly goes after the President What specifically are you accusing John Oliver of doing with regards to the president? I doubt he say anything that would even theoretically qualify as hate speech, but if I'm mistaken, I would be interested in a link to any example of John Oliver inciting his audience to harass the President because of the President's race, sex, religion, or other protected class. > ambiguous predicates The only ambiguity I see is a lot of people misusing the term "hate speech". > Crowder is extremely clear about his views on not harassing or doxxing, I know; I do actually do my research about a topic before getting involved in an argument. Saying tht harassment and doxxing are bad is step 1. If he actually wanted it to stop, it would be a good idea for him to publicly condemn the those in his audience that were responsible for the harassment/etc, and work to avoid similarly inciting his audience in the future. However, saying a few words against harassment and then continuing the behavior that he now knows could cause additional problems in his audience is at best irresponsible and reckless, and at worst makes his statements about harassment look suspiciously like a like or dog whistle. > but it's clear that you haven't even done me (your opponent in this debate) the courtesy of some basic knowledge-gathering. Warning: this kind of personal attack is against HN rules. > I also think that assholes have a right to be asshole I agree. Which is why the accusations against Crowder are bout the behavior that is significantly worse than simply being an asshole. Harassment and hate speech eventually lead to violence when ignored.