They have very poor subjective definitions that boil down to anything any group considers offensive which is a moving needle, and that make make things like satire and certain forms of comedy illegal and have a chilling effect on valid criticism. It's also compelled speech, and in some cases leaves violence as the only resort, as opposed to a conversation and de-conversion from extremist beliefs. We've seen abuse of it in several cases, if no one is offended, they'll create a group or pay someone to be offended. There's no burden of proof beyond someone's emotional state upon hearing the words. You can say something to two people of a group, one might think its funny and laugh, another might report you and call the cops.
Also, turns out you can yell fire in a theater, especially if you at least believe it to be true, and that's something courts can't determine, lots of people say things that they believe to be true, that turn out to be false. Likewise, if speech is dangerous but true, its still should be protected.
In either case, best this be settled in courts and legislation, not corporate meeting rooms that are echo chambers of opinion.
>If we're talking about at the society level, because it threatens democracy, peace, individuals safety
We already have laws against that, its why hate speech laws are usually redundant and likely to be abused and scope creep into silencing valid criticism of an individual or group of individuals who can then be offended and have you arrested, at the very least putting you through months and years of legal trouble before you're acquitted, and that's only if you can afford proper defense.
You people need to look at history. It boggles me how uneducated people are today on the context of this issue.
Even the person that did the Parlor leak is a Meiklejohnian absolutist.
I'm really confused by what your points is. You spend most of your post talking about how laws against hate speech are ineffectual because courts can't determine a persons emotions and beliefs, and then say it's best handled by laws and courts.
Yeah, Weimar Germany could teach you some lessons, apparently.
Some of the BLM counter-protests in the UK also became rather heated: https://www.politico.eu/article/johnson-condemns-racist-thug...
Of course the Belgium bombing was a political attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/world/europe/iran-disside...
Are you suggesting only the US has political violence?
Because of the first amendment, and how the courts have very consistently interpreted to allow hate speech.
>and how has the US managed to do so well for centuries with it being perfectly legal?
If by "do so well for centuries" you mean the US's economic output and world status over the centuries, I would argue that profiting off of Europe rebuilding itself after two world wars probably outweighed the detrimental effects of hate speech (among probably several dozen other reasons).
If you mean "how has the US done so well handling the negative effects of hate speech for centuries without making it illegal", I would argue that hate speech has contributed to some of the most shameful and barbaric social dynamics over the centuries, and the US is historically well behind other modern countries on this front.
Maliciously categorizing someone based on skin color, race, income, social status and religion in an attempt to denounce hate speech.
Poetic
Because we've generally dealt with that by deplatforming that sort of speech socially and/or in the private sector.
The history of the civil rights movement is filled with boycotts and other sorts of social pressure campaigns.
If you were a minority, it really has not done well at all.
I really dislike this argument. A lot of democratic countries have defined hate speech. In the US, individual companies define it and moderate it as they see fit. In other countries, their legislators and courts define it. The US has defined lots of difficult terms to define already.
>And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway?
I mean if we're talking about why companies should ban it, I'm sure they have a variety of reasons that range from bad PR and loss of revenue, to the founders/owners/employees don't want to build a product that's used for violence.
If we're talking about at the society level, because it threatens democracy, peace, individuals safety
>And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal?
A lot of democratic countries already have. UK, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland (and yes, they managed to define it somehow): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country