If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too?
This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
Smh
And this is by design.
No, in America this is false. A true threat must be a credible, present danger to its target. Saying "all people of race X should be killed" is nothing like that.
same goes for libel and threats to individuals.
No. Libel is not illegal, and is still protected against prior restraint. It's only addressable through civil liability suits.
And this is by design.
People like to talk about "defamation", but in America the bar is so high that it's only rarely applicable.
Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.