yeah that's generally the states purpose of hate speech laws

if someone says "I really dont like white people" .. they are perfectly free and at liberty to have that opinion.. and even express it... if however they fire someone, or post a job not allowing members of said group.. that is when they are affecting them

in fact... even then, you would have to prove that there is a consistent behaviour

at least in the ango-world... where people are innocent until proven guilty... I suppose over on the european mainland its different, being guilty until proven innocent

which is why english liberalism is different from the idea of "liberty" on the mainland

the idea though is that certain speech can contribute to a cultural environment that violates people's liberty on the basis of characteristics like race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc

Key word being "can"

speech is an extension of someones own thoughts

well, proponents of hate speech policies would generally argue it does

the government should not control/punish human thought

actions are an extension of someone's thoughts

people should be free to express any emotion... even hate

if you murder someone odds are what you thought influenced that decision

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1215625888454279168

do you think people should be able to advocate for genocide

what is this

well.. not always (people dont always think about murder before it happens).. but if I went on twitter and said Id kill for a bbq should I be arrested?

i don't think anyone would think so

and btw... people advocate for genocide all the time on twitter

nothing happens to them

and no-one cares

at least when its "cant we genocide white people"

well of course they will care less when it comes to white people

and so they shouldnt

people should be able to say or joke about anything they want

do you think laws against incitement to violence are anti-liberal?

depends how far people attribute incitement to violence... do you think dankulas video was incitement to violence?

didnt someone post a video literally saying she wants someone to kill sargon.. in a very specific way

like if a politician were to, before a large crowd, advocate that a certain group be exterminated

dont recall anything happening to her

I think a politician would not get very far, saying something like that

at the end of the day, if they are saying its their opinion it should happen.. its still just an opinion

yeah but do you think that being illegal would be anti-liberal

and i mean, politicians have gotten far on rhetoric like that

if a politician went up and said all white people should be exterminated... I doubt they would get very far

even in south africa that is a minority of people and theyre usually dismissed/disavowed by all the other politicians

i would rather know their opinion... so I could do something to help change it

i mean it's happened in rwanda

but what i'm asking is would it be inherently anti-liberal to ban that

perhaps if the politicians had sat down and talked openly the tutsi's would be in greater numbers

It would depend on how you are defining liberalism