Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "2v1 Debating a Conservative and Liberal Free Speech Defender" video.

"The counter to hate speech is more speech" is resting on the assumption that all humans are rational and will consider your speech of you tell them. They're not. And they won't. In times of crisis or strife (1930's Germany) do you really think that DESTROYING Nazis with FACTS AND LOGIC would shut down their rallies or support? People were desperate for change and would follow anyone who told them what they wanted to hear. No amount of speech would counter that, sorry.
3
@superbird1377 The allies convinced more countries to join with lots and lots of money. Enormous corruption was present in postwar Italy and Greece due to American money skewing political interests in the direction of the upper class. Even in cases where underhanded tactics didn't need to be used, it was mostly a result of the Marshall Plan in Europe, and more money everywhere else. The promise of civil rights, like free speech, certainly helped. But political dissidents (communists) were silenced in countries aligned with the U.S.. It's not truly free speech, then.
2
@polka Question: how does your government deal with the definition of 'dangered group' (because that can get regally exploited I feel), And "must lead to violence"— does that mean hate speech is only ever retroactively labeled? Like if something very hateful and inciting violence is said, but never actually leads to violence, is it not hate speech?
1