> What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws. And yet you define Hate Speech laws as those disallowing others from "of

> What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws. And yet you define Hate Speech laws as those disallowing others from "offending, mocking, or belittling" those in designated protected classes. Is that truly what these laws you are referring to are targeting? I don't see that in the UK's bill. Sincerely: am I missing it? Am I misreading? It's long, I relied on a summary for this comment. > If it's a legitimate threat then it's illegal no matter what person or group it is targeted at... If it's real abuse, if it's real threats... then it's illegal universally. The chilling effect of violent rhetoric will exist and persist whether the threat is legitimate or not. That's the debate. Should you be able to stoke those sentiments freely? The individuals who are stigmatized certainly don't have the capacity to fact-check every threat. I'm not an advocate for these laws, I don't know what's best, but I can't see it as black and white as you seem to. The person you replied to had what I thought to be a very good perspective I hadn't considered.