We Must NOT Regulate Hate Speech

In this article I will explain some of the problems surrounding the word of hatred and its regulation. In the first two sections we will discuss the positions of Andrew Altman and Jonathan Rauch. In Part 3, I will introduce that Altman can speak against Rauff's opposition. Then I will discuss my argument that dislike speech should never be regulated under any circumstances, especially with respect to protecting someone's psychology, emotions or anxiety specified by Altman. Finally, I conclude that despite good faith moral belief that promotes regulation of disliked speech, you should not agree with Altman.

"On March 26, 2024, you retweeted:" Do you want freedom of speech, freedom is what you get, it is not freedom of speech, it is a free world. "According to the new rules , This message is classified as hatred. You were warned to delete the message, but you could not comply. If you think there is an error, you can contact the nearest government welfare office. How can I survive for a month? Where can I get staple food if I am blocked by Amazon? I will be on the street, at the back seat of the police car or under the bridge. There is a shiny show full of trophies on the street, but direct A of his life is a favorite of his class. Who should be blamed? Murmur tweet? my parents? government? society? The power of history? Me? Everyone, everything, the whole universe? Or just a series of random events?

Every effort by the government trying to control hate speech is declared unconstitutional. 25 years ago, 350 or more universities and universities used voice code dislikes. However, we believe that all courts claim that such disliked speech codes are illegal. These codes are inevitably ambiguous in that they allow for speech or forbidden content. Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute, there is the possibility of being punished if causing illegal acts, "real threat" that fears imminent harm within the scope of prohibiting personal safety and harassment .

Speech codes can make new conservatists and anti - averse speech regulations successful, because such efforts are doomed to be unsuccessful or unrealistic. Caucasians will never accept such rules. They infer that proponents of regulation of hatred speech regulation must know this, so their goal may be symbolic, very, or in any case they may not say Hmm. For example, actively, the US Supreme Court consistently dismissed laws regulating speech, and determined that they are ambiguous and too broad. He also wrote that anti-aversion speech campaign lacks foresight and 'market stability' and it is completely impossible to sell it to the American people. Mr. Gates hated speech activists and asked ways to believe that campus rules are valid even if enacted. If the radicalist believes that the campus is at the boiling stage of racism, how will the campus administrator and the hearing officer make non-discriminatory hearings based on the code?