> Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing. I just

> Some people may believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the convincing. I just don't know where you got this idea. "Hate speech" isn't just a vague, negative sentiment towards universally recognizable characteristics. It constitutes particular themes and narratives regarding identities constructed arbitrarily out of a constellation of human characteristics that mean nothing outside their context. The absurd story, for example, that Jews bake their Matzah bread out of Christian childrens' blood isn't something that would ever be reproduced on a desert island, any more than it would be reproduced by a thousand monkeys hacking away at typewriters. It's a particular trope invented by a particular powerbase (Christian princes) for economic purposes (maintaining Feudalism despite plebian uprisings). No one would "probably believe it... without the convincing," because it has to be invented first, and then it has to be introduced to the milieu. The same is true of basically any story or narrative. Here is where you might be right: maintaining the political economy of medieval Europe necessitated some kind of blood libel, and the Jewish communities were a conveniently vulnerable minority. So at that point, Christian princes needed no convincing themselves, and "that's a reflection of who they are:" Christian, and princes. (I leave it to the reader, as an exercise, to determine whether it was more material that they were Christian, or that they were princes.) Here is where that's limited: Christian princes do not, themselves, need to believe the libel. They do need, however, their economic powerbase to believe it. And their economic powerbase of Christian commoners has no reason to think up the blood libel themselves when the facts of their exploitation under feudalism ought to cause them to resent, primarily, princes. I am not suggesting that "complete free speech" is infeasible, or undesirable, but, to reiterate, I simply don't understand where you got the idea that people all over the world somehow spontaneously, perhaps genetically, simultaneously author with identical wording, the very particular tropes that constitute hate speech.