How would you define hate speech?

IMO, whatever leftist liberal progressives say about those who don't conform to their "woke" beliefs falls into the category of hate speech.

Will be an ever changing definition based on the philosophy of whoever controls law enforcement

The borderline-sociopathic, antisocial media feeds & tweets of aligned groups,

maliciously *“Ready to Cancel” *anyone that doesn’t agree with their agenda, Today.

Laughably, they are recently and frequently turning on each other ; ))

And, “No”, they are NOT a “culture”. There’s nothing “cultural” about their actions. Their way is to ‘seek out and dismantle’ individuals, an established culture and its legacy.

Quizzically, when they cant find ‘something’ to fight, or ‘*someone to destroy’, *they will now turn and sacrifice ‘one of their own’ who may question their fervor or ‘straddle the middle ground’.

Well, for example, obviously look at the current trend on this “Have Your Say”. It’s only attracting downvotes with the first 6 comments in the last hour alone. What does that “define” about “hate”? And, those ‘ready to cancel’ “others”?

Hopefully, @RiskyMosaic 10:32am this doesn’t “throw us Both out“ but, …

‘Agree’ to and re-post Your voiced opinion:

-@RiskyMoisaic: “I'll throw one out: Anything that causes people to go out and physically harm other people on the basis of what 'group' they belong to.” …

… and, the collateral damage & injuries caused to innocent bystanders, communities and small businesses.

"Hate speech" is a social/govt. construct designed to limit free speech.

Censorship is hate & fear based.

So-called “Hate speech” isn’t always only verbal or written. It can also be, possibly borderline-sociopathic, actions, like not listening to an inner voice to restrain your yourself but blatantly interrupting a 1st time Grammy winner’s acceptance speech by jumping onstage and asserting your own different preference.

So-called “Hate speech” can also be both “*silent*” and “*tone-deaf” through blatantly distracting, ‘contemptuous actions*’ at ‘*inappropriate times*’.

For example, instead of ‘standing proudly as an example of fair sportsmanship for impressionable children’, turn your back to your co-competitors and fidget like an upset, pouting child, while the others are lauded for their well-earned, advanced positions in sports that have nothing to do with unrelated, purportedly, ‘self-righteous’ demonstrations of activism.

I don’t care, as long as it’s only verbally or written and neither violence nor any actions involved. Freedom of speech and expressing any opinions are of much higher value for me.

"Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation" fits well, I think.

Anything that hurts my feelings.

”fits well”, Yes, in part, @ES 2:09pm. But why does that “Top-hit” Google search definition limit “hate speech” to* just those:*

*- **“…against… on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."*

 … or could there be possibly more criteria than just a search engine’s ‘Top-hit’ answer?

Potentially, yeah.

Freedom of speech and expressing any opinions are of much higher value for me.

I've never really understood the "freedom of speech" concept. Free to hold and express opinions for sure. But not to express them in any manner you want. Did we not all learn the expression "watch your tongue" from our parents?

Imagine a group from a religious denomination telling others they will go to hell if they don't do what they say. If they're preaching in the high street, it's not a big deal. We can all laugh at them. But if they're shouting at six-year old kids as they enter their primary school, it's a different matter.

Perhaps @RiskyM 5:41p, you mean “gender” or “gender identity” when you listed “Sex, for example” ?

The paraphrasing was just in the interest of brevity and not to reflect a bias or create more controversy. The question to @Esister 3:07pm was just about how search engines can also sometimes limit what information is provided.

Isn’t it already defined, by the two components hate and speech? If it is not containing hate and also not is presented by a speech before witnessing audience then it’s something else, but no hate speech. That’s obvious, isn’t it?

speech that expresses threats, violence, or any form of discrimination

speech that expresses threats, violence, or any form of discrimination

A while back a coffee shop thought they could pass off some cheap Brazilian beans as the Blue Mountain I had ordered. The ruse didn’t work. They were counting on me not being able to discriminate between the two.

A while back a coffee shop thought they could pass off some cheap Brazilian beans as the Blue Mountain I had ordered. The ruse didn’t work. They were counting on me not being able to discriminate between the two.

Don't really get the point but ok.

what a load of old nonsense.

Hate speech will be whatever hurts the feelings of those who cry the loudest, even if what is being said is objectively true.

Hate speech is speech that the "communities" hate

Hate speech is language that degrades humans