I'm sorry that you disliked the article so much and thought that reading it was a waste of your life. In regards to the points you've made: > But what is hate s

I'm sorry that you disliked the article so much and thought that reading it was a waste of your life. In regards to the points you've made: > But what is hate speech? Hate speech, to me, is expressing hated towards others, be it online or in person, with no reason or justification. > What is the line that you draw? I dislike many things in this world. I dislike Nazis. I dislike people who discriminate against others for no reason. I dislike big companies like Google who sell users data and have unethical practices. I don't hate them though. I think the line should be drawn when it goes beyond disliking someone/thing. When you actively seek arm against whatever it may be. > The author vaguely alludes lack of evidence The Holocaust happened. There have been countless history books that have been both written and fact checked. Saying that it didn't happen because you sympathise with Nazis isn't ok. If there is evidence and proof that something happened an ideology shouldn't get in the way of it. An ideology also shouldn't allow you to slander a group of people because of it. > Are all lies hate speech? Absolutely not, however, if there is historical evidence (in this case wether or not the holocaust happened) it seems so wrong to just deny it. Such atrocities should not be ignored for the sake of free speech. If we say that certain events never happened we might as well say that Americans never fought for free speech.