Every bit of unsubstantiveness has that much more flamewar-starting potential on controversial topics like this, so we ask that commenters take extra care to post within the guidelines.
I haven't yet seen data that hate crimes are on the rise, just that media coverage of them is (in America). That... doesn't really seem like a bad thing to me. Getting these heinous crimes in the light seems like it could do only good (or horribly backfire, I suppose).
>Police regularly shoot black people
I don't see a correlation between this and an increase in hate speech. Or really, even, evidence that police shooting of minorities is on the rise, or that hate speech is on the rise. I'm open to be challenged with new data, though.
>Climate change
Again, a very very big problem (I personally believe Trump's POV on climate change combined with his significant power should beget him the title "enemy of humanity"), but I really don't understand what that would have to do with hate speech.
Indeed. The founder of Greenpeace, a PhD in Ecology, is a "climate change" skeptic. Or maybe he just thinks it's better for trees if the oceans destroy our coastal cities? Not really clear here, but the point is, he disagrees with the prevailing line of thought. :P [0]
I have done very little research on climate change and have nothing to discuss with reference to the matter, but the suggestion that such a person should not be allowed to express his views because they violate the narrative pushed by the corporate media is absurd.
> If you don't like the laws, work to change them. Don't demonize those who are enforcing them.
We didn't accept "just following orders" at the Nuremburg trials, and those defendants could have been executed for disobeying. I don't see why we should accept it at home from police officers whose only risk is losing their job.