Whilst true, there is a stark difference between stating a fact and using hatespeech.

Who gets to decide the difference between facts and hatespeech? A famous meme is citing FBI crime statistics by demographics, which are considered factual information but using them in any argument will have you branded a racist.

If after November, the powers that be decide that "Donald Trump lost the 2020 election" is no longer allowed speech, you're screwed. Especially if you wear it on a T-shirt.

> FBI crime statistics ... are considered factual information but using them in any argument will have you branded a racist

Are you talking about this kind of thing? https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Depends how you "use" it, surely. Using it to claim that black people are inherently more violent, or to justify police crackdowns on black neighbourhoods is still racist and is not supported by the fact in itself.

There are many facts that you aren't allowed to state in the west, including ones which would likely cause you trouble at TSA.

Could you give examples? I can think of some cases where a controversial interpretation of the evidence will get you in trouble, but not well-established facts in the realm of "this historical event did in fact occur".

If you go back to before Jeffrey Epstein was exposed, you would likely face high level suppression if you made a public accusation of Prince Andrew. Many accusations of sexual assault were suppressed before they became believed during #MeToo. Courtney Love publicly warned about Harvey Weinstein in 2005, implying that his behavior was widely known for decades before he was finally arrested. We can talk about it now, but if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed.

It's almost certain that there are other things like this going on right now. We just haven't heard about them yet. In other words, within our lifetimes we will almost certainly learn, "In 2024, they did..." and we're not aware of it now.

You could also point to news organizations publishing the photos of white mass shooters but not black mass shooters. Try to find a photo of the Kansas City Superbowl parade shooters in mainstream media. Or try searching "Kansas City Superbowl shooting shooters" vs "Las Vegas mass shooting shooter" in Google images. In the former, there are one or two images in the New York Post of one of the shooters. In the latter, almost every image is of the shooter.

Another example is deleting useful data when it contradicts the official narratives. For example, https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-great-immigration-data-di...

Well sure, but Prince Andrew conducting sexual abuse isn't currently in the realm of established fact. You and I have our strong suspicions, but he hasn't been convicted of anything and as far as I'm aware the evidence boils down to a few witness statements. The Tiananmen Square massacre is supported by photos, multiple eyewitness accounts from protestors and soldiers, foreign media reports, and even remorseful statements from government officials.

> if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed

She probably would have worsened her career prospects, which I agree is horrific. It's a testament of how the entertainment industry reinforces patriarchal norms. But it is a far cry from actual suppression. Personalities like David Icke have been lobbing accusations around about the Royal Family for years, publishing books and giving talks. As far as I'm aware he hasn't been imprisioned or censored in the UK for any of that. He's been banned from countries for denying the Holocaust and spreading COVID misinformation, but neither of these are cases of stating well-established facts.

Definition of "hatespeech" is arbitrary. How are yall not getting this. "1989 Tiananmen Square" is hatespeech too. It's disrupting harmonious society, harming hardworking people etc..

It's ambiguous. Vague, even. But not arbitrary. For example, it pretty much universally relates to speech that discriminates on the basis of identity factors such as race, religion or sexual orientation. A country cannot categorise "1989 Tiananmen Square" as hatespeech and expect to be taken seriously. What identity group is being hated?

It’s easy enough to make the case for "Tienanmen Square 1989" and "Free Tibet" to be hate speech as well. The people who go around saying that don’t tend to think very highly of the CCP.