> <<< Jews are described as "the ugliest, most evil-minded people" who resemble "maggots when they overpopulate a decaying cheese." >>>

> Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.

That may depend on whether you are asking whether it is okay to say, literally, "$GROUP is described as $X", or if you are actually asking if it is permitted to say "$GROUP is $X".

It singles out an individual to the group as being full or hate and bile, censoring would not disappear the person, it would only force them to be more convincing and manipulative.

It would trigger a backlash in which would be a convincing and Thorough retort of the viewpoint, giving good immunity to lurkers in their lives after that should they come across this viewpoint again.

It would ensure that a constant evaluation of what is true within society. Without this we really don't know what is true.

open discourse has its problems, but its literally our only vehicle from bad ideas to good ideas.

Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?

Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.

Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.

I think that "disagree" isn't exactly the correct description of someone's stance vis-a-vis hate speech, particularly that which is targeted at them.

It has been noted that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact". For what it's worth, tolerance isn't a suicide pact either: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.