> I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws Yes, I'm discussing the hate speech laws. You can still incite people to hatred in private conversations. Think

> I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws Yes, I'm discussing the hate speech laws. You can still incite people to hatred in private conversations. Thinking about your reply leads me to agree that the hate speech laws indeed go too far, and I'll talk about that with regard to the third point. But I still stand by the claim that free speech should be restricted to certain platforms. > I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. You misunderstand me. I'm saying that this notion that we have a right to read or listen is not unqualified. When you think of traditional government censorship, it seems obvious, but it does not stand the test when we consider other gatekeepers of information. We do not have a right to read or listen to news articles or scholarly papers if publishers so choose not to distribute them to us. > The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. The hate speech laws do not prevent spreading ideas to a similar extent that copyright laws do not prevent spreading ideas. More narrowly, if your hate speech passes the tests for fair use it is likely that they will pass the test for not being hate speech, since it would be clear that those ideas are being framed in a "research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review and news reporting" context. > Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. Not really. We all agree that toxic and hazardous materials must have very regulated distribution, in the sense that where they are sold there must be huge warnings that they contain hazards. There are materials that are would be controversial to ban (like drugs), and there are ideas that would be controversial to restrict distribution, but there are also ideas that would not be controversial to restrict distribution (like advocating children to bully each other---distinct from considering philosophically the morality of such a policy). > This is not true. I will concede this point. Moderate religionists think this way, but the more extreme religionists do not. Your examples don't really work since those are still private conversations and private distribution, and so don't run afoul of the law. But the point still stands that there is an interest in putting hate-inciting content in a public space. The main problem with hate-inciting content being in a public space is that it harasses a person who is not prepared for it, again, the "children's eyes" example stands that free speech should be restricted to certain platforms. To address that, I think it suffices that hate-inciting content must be put behind a confirmation that the content incites hatred and is not suitable for minors: it is still accessible to everyone, and the concern for harassment is gone. As examples, fiction containing bigoted characters speaking hate need not possess them, since they do not exhort the reader or claim any truth, but insofar as religious texts exhort the reader, and discuss mistruths that hurt any group, they should contain such warnings.