Unless you pick sides morally, trying to potentially incite a revolution certainly seems to classify as hate speech. It just happens to be hate speech directed at an absolute monarchy which has done terrible things to its people, but that's where you get into the far more murky waters of inciting justified violence.
How can you not pick sides morally if you're using a label such as "hate speech"? After all, that's a moral judgement (although the word itself usually denotes an emotion).
It's just a label. (And you already contradicted yourself.) Hate speech is speech that encourages discrimination or violence against a group of people based on certain protected categories, e.g. race, religion, gender. So if someone says "no one should hire short people because they can't reach things on tall shelves", that would be fine. If they say "no one should hire Muslims because they take time off to pray each day" that would be hate speech.
Categories get added based on past behavior. Disparaging short people is kinda bad, but it wouldn't (even in jurisdictions that ban hate speech) be illegal because there hasn't been a mass campaign of violence and discrimination based on height. On the other hand, divisions between races, religions etc have been pretty damaging so they're on the list.
So who gets to decide which groups get protected and which are not protected? And doesn't that immediately demonstrate protected groups have more incidental political power than the groups who are not?
It seems to me by definition the groups with the most political clout will be the first to be protected because they were able to get the legislation passed to protect their group!
We already have protected categories defined. You can take issue with the process but it's not a new thing. And no I don't think that when powerful interests have committed eugenics campaigns and taken the vote away from certain groups of people that those groups have more political power. As for how it will go in the future, it's of course possible that it will be abused and there will have to be accountability. But so far it's looking OK and that gives me some hope. It's not like women voted to give themselves the vote, or black people overpowered white people to get schools desegregated etc.
>powerful interests have committed eugenics campaigns and taken the vote away from certain groups of people
yes they /had/ political power which is exactly why they could pass legislation to oppress those groups.
Who do you think has more political power in the United States today, the Congressional Black Caucus, or Richard Spenser and the Alt-Right?
note: This is not an endorsement of racist policies or an argument that the Alt-Right should have more political power, but an example showing that protected groups have more political power than racist groups, which is exactly why we have legislation to protect the protected groups!
"Who do you think has more political power in the United States today, the Congressional Black Caucus, or Richard Spenser and the Alt-Right?"
Considering the White House is full of people who support Spencer and the alt-right, and this country still gets super riled up when black men peacefully and quietly ask the police to stop murdering them, I'm probably not going to go with the Congressional Black Caucus.
How about the actions of this administration? How about refusing to condemn the actions of the marchers in Charlottesville? How about separating parents from their children at the border? How about the Muslim Ban?
The actions are directly in line with what the alt-right has been asking for.
I disagree with your definition (I don't think it has to do with history, or with a subjectively-chosen list of characteristics). I guess my morality is different, i.e. we're taking sides.
But regardless, parent used "hate speech directed at an absolute monarchy" which doesn't fit into any of your categories and is clearly an oppressive abuse of the overall concept. Quite immoral, if you ask me.
> trying to potentially incite a revolution certainly seems to classify as hate speech
How's that? Inciting violence can be a crime, but it's not hate speech, it's a different crime.
Saying critical things about a political regime can be a crime, in an oppressive country, but again, it's not hate speech.
Wikipedia's working definition seems about right:
> Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
>trying to potentially incite a revolution certainly seems to classify as hate speech.
I don't see this as any type of hate speech, especially if it's a peaceful revolution. If that many people decide to change things peacefully, isnt that just democracy? A hypothetical: Near 100% of non-essential people in jobs just stopping going to work is not really violent and at that point it would likely be police/government getting violent against their own people for not working. A revolution can mean a lot of things.
