> This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious message

> This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...