It seems the original hate speech thread drew interest but not debate. Maybe the reason is because it wasn't clearly defined. So if we want to debate the position, let us use this definition for Hate Speech: 1)- No threats of violence are made 2)- No "stalking" activity is committed. 3)- The individual making the speech has never been known to act out violently at any point in their entire life, and appears unlikely to do so in the immediate future. (At the very least, they have no prior assault convictions.) It's really disingenuous to try and convolute a debate by adding conditions that would be illegal for other reasons, even without hate speech laws. So, let us assume that nothing is happening that would be illegal if two people of the same ethnicity, religion, and biological make up were doing them to each other. Examples of what would remain might be: - The KKK calling for a boycott of Jewish/Black/Hispanic businesses. - A Neo-Nazi pseudo-scientist writing books attempting to establish the genetic superiority of the German people. - A genuine scholar writing a book that seriously criticizes and/or points out the shortcomings of African culture. - A comedy sketch artist who makes a sketch that seriously mocks the idiosyncrasies, quirks, and customs of another ethnic group. - Genetic biologists who attempt to publish IQ scores by ethnicity, or other statistical observations. Is there a danger in all this? Sure. Guess what? Freedom is dangerous. If you're afraid of the consequences, then move to a dictatorship where you'll feel safe. Let all the brave people stay and enjoy their freedom. This is what I want to debate. If there are no serious takers, then I'll stop trying.