I’ll tell this, that I told in a previous comment:
Offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.
Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
When LGBTQ+ people fighted for their rights, or when black people did the peoper, or when some people fighted against slavery, all of these people were looked at “hate groups” (in the terms of their times) or as “violent groups” or “dangerous groups”, because they were questioning their status quo and the power that opressed them.
I’ll tell this, that I told in a previous comment:
Offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.
Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
When LGBTQ+ people fighted for their rights, or when black people did the peoper, or when some people fighted against slavery, all of these people were looked at “hate groups” (in the terms of their times) or as “violent groups” or “dangerous groups”, because they were questioning their status quo and the power that opressed them.