"But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies." That is hate speech, can you see? Y

"But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies." That is hate speech, can you see? You can't see it because you are privileged. That is the reason only me as a "protected minority" can relate and say what is or not hate speech against us. You simply can't understand our life experience. --> by simple "twist" I can bend your intent and make you a hater Does the Law have space for replies? Don't think so. Who will decide a reply is good enough? "Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning" I think it is more of "think about the children" slippery slope. You sell it about a "good excuse" then later abuse it. The countries that seems to implement it are doing it most in a way to curb criticism to some govt policies than protecting "groups". Then every criticism about govt policy is "hate speech". E.g: govt decides to give iPhones to X group. If you complain that will be "hate speech"? Again this is very lax and prone to abuse. We as good intended and polite can see it has to be more specific but the "govt" does not. Are we smart than people that make laws everydays? I don't think so. Then I rather not have it. Better hate people for what they think/say than for what they hide.