Good. "Hate speech" is a false label. All it amounts to is speech that some subset of society finds disagreeable and seeks to suppress. Some things that are cla

Good. "Hate speech" is a false label. All it amounts to is speech that some subset of society finds disagreeable and seeks to suppress. Some things that are classified as "hate speech", like explicitly racist content, are disagreeable to most of society. Even in those cases, I prefer upholding a universal right to free speech rather than suppressing open discourse. The ACLU of old became famous for defending civil liberties even when it came to disagreeable groups like the KKK. Even though the ACLU has since abandoned their classically liberal mission (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...), I think it is worth thinking back to how Ira Glasser ran the ACLU previously, in a principled manner where it was important to defend those rights at all times. For the modern world, I think it is important to expect that giant private conglomerates uphold the civil liberties given to us under law in those private spaces they control. After all, they function more like a public utility and common carrier. Otherwise, they will abuse those powers in various ways, for example if their employees have a particular set of biases. It is unacceptable for our most basic and ubiquitous forms of communication to be controlled by tech giants that ignore fundamental societal values like free speech. I also want to point out that not everything that is labeled "hate speech" is clearly bad. For example, Ibram X Kendi defines "racist" as anything that perpetuates inequities across racial groups, meaning differences in outcomes (rather than differences in opportunity). I think most people would not consider a difference in outcomes to be racist, but under Kendi's definition (which is part of the "anti-racist"/CRT movement), even something like an objective standardized test can be viewed as racist. So should speech defending standardized testing be censored on social media? What about speech defending Kyle Rittenhouse, which Twitter/Facebook/etc. have been censoring under their policy around violence/dangerous individuals, despite the recent ruling? Similarly, gender identity and trans issues are highly controversial and there is significant debate on how to deal with it. Does it really make sense to censor open discussion of this issue while it is so current? In all these instances we already have a tried and true solution - let the speech happen, let debate run its course, and avoid simply letting those in power control speech and other outcomes. I'm not sure why that ever became controversial.