> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. Right. I can't think of anyo

> I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. Right. I can't think of anyone I have come across in liberal media. But you can always dig someone up that takes any given position. > While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We live in a world where the mechanisms of mass communication are held in private hands---there is no digital public square, regardless of what techno-libertarians might have you believe. All correct. The people who want it to be one way or the other (depending on their political leanings) usually are conflating constitutional protections from the government as being applicable to/from everyone and everything else. If you're screaming on Twitter that (some racial group) is bad, and people tell you to shut up, they are allowed to do so under the first amendment. You're allowed to do so under the first amendment. Twitter can totally ban you based on what they deem acceptable behavior, because the first amendment doesn't regulate private companies (just the government). If you're calling for the extermination of that particular group, the government can charge you under US Code for inciting violence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 ...But you have to prove intent, which is notoriously hard to do, and notoriously easy to get off scott-free from. ("I was being bombastic, I didn't think anyone would LITERALLY try and exterminate said group")