Typically, hate speech wasn't afforded the same reach 60 years ago that it may have now. You have to remember that all these idealistic views happened in the context of a very harsh monopoly on mass media and a much tighter control of which opinions would be platformed on there (can you imagine a communist being allowed to speak during the cold war, other suppression of speech in that area aside?)

I suspect it’s not so much the internet so much as bots and fake accounts that expanded the reach ago make nasty ideas grow. And algorithm newsfeeds designed to maximize emotional engagement. I may be wrong, but the issue isn’t free speech but fake people pushing topics into engagement maximizing systems that control most of the internet

There was a mass media monopoly in 1788?

Are you sure?

Didn't it help that is wasn't unacceptable to call a black person n**r and to call a homosexual f**t?

Freedom of expression always goes in both directions. Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression.

> Your free expression can suppress my freedom of expression

How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?

>> How does even harmful speech (e.g. your examples) prevent your freedom of expression?

Fear, threat of property and physical harm.

So...eat the rich? Seize the means of production? ACAB? Things like that qualify?

That is not the same thing though is it. People today fear being socially ostracized or losing a career over crossing an undefined or subjective line.

Neither of these fears are the same as actually preventing someone from expressing their views.

When threats become actual violence there are already laws to address that. Trying to preemptively protect people from mean words invariably harms more people than it purports to protect.

>When threats become actual violence

Only physical violence or does psychological violence count too?

What about cyberbullying and mobbing?

Ever heard of bullying?

You don't need physical force for that.

Bullying is an additional level of action, right? If you're using a different verb it probably also means additional actions that aren't simply speech.

I dislike bad stuff too. Bullying is wrong and should be stopped. Hate speech is also wrong but I'll defend people's right to speak.

"Bullying" is actually a great example of something that once we decide the concept is bad, there is a rush from people to frame everything they don't like along those lines. I'd suggest that under the blanket and nebulous headline of "bullying" are actions that are already illegal like harassment and assault.