free speech and hate speech are the same thing. only platforming speech you agree with is, by definition, not free speech.

Standing US law disagrees with you.

Free speech doesn't come from the constitution, it's an inherent God given right.

God forbade bearing false witness or taking His name in vain. Clearly a restriction on free speech.

Why didn't God tell Moses that? For that matter, which God?

I support the idea of inaelable rights, but tying it to divinity is problematic to say the least.

Tell every enlightenment philosopher for using that language then.

There is no concept of hate speech in US law:

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate

> There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn.

> In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.

Fortunately, we can change the laws in the US, as long as we do not devolve into a full blown autocracy. Our current Oligopolis is pretty damn close.

Not everyone thinks we should be free to spread hate. Germany has good historical reasons to ban holocaust denial. Rawanda has good reasons to ban genocidal speech. No more going on the radio to say, "Cut down the tall trees".

The reason to not platform hate speech is the same reason you're not allowed to yell fire in a theater or bomb in an airport without their being one. Or say you're going to kill the president. Even the US has limits on what can be said, including liability laws. You can't just defame your neighbor and not face legal repercussions if they take you to court.

One can imagine this argument during the Salem Witch trials. "She's a witch" wasn't just a joke back then. It could get someone burned at the stake.

The US has good historical reasons to ban the promotion of socialist/communist ideology, yet I don't think many people on the left would be down with that.

Germany's ban on hate speech did nothing to prevent the rise of the AfD.

Maybe. Except "organizing a peaceful protest" is a question of intent, not of consequences. The total destruction of Paris and the curious case of Jewish stores being targeted while muslim owned stores being protected by the following mobs is a great example. The people who started the protests? Naive students. The people who actually showed up? Different people. Very different.