...
...
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc.
[RL bold added]
re: "
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception [,] I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech."
Injury (harm, damage) vs Expression (of idea)
Per US Supreme Court ruling, hate speech is an expression of a view point (an idea). Limiting it is a "view point discrimination" which is prohibited. [ Switching to my opinion instead of per court ruling ] The key word in the Cornell Law Library definition of libel is
injury, libel is an act intended to cause injury. Hate speech may make someone feel bad, but feeling is not quantifiable or provable. So, you cannot possibly show in court that actual damage was done by said speech.
Per Cornell Law definition, libel is a form of
defamation, it helps to also look at legal definition of
defamation (again from Cornell Law Library):
"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4)
damages, or some
harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamationre:view point & view point discrimiation -- Quoting the US Supreme Court:"JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, agreed that 15 U. S. C. §1052(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a)
With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–829.
The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether—within the relevant subject category—the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” §1052(a); and within that category... ... ..."
Source of quote is this Supreme Court paper: "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATESPATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf