What is "hate speech"?

[Maximus Zeebra]

In my opinion hate speech is anything you want it to be, it is a relative term and a tool of censorship and suppression of freedom of speech and any opposing point of view. Hate speech can be anything you want it to be and as such is a very popular and indefinite term. It is a danger to democracy, to freedom, to freedom of expression and thought, and to things like facts, sanity and reality. We now have the incoming "speech and thought police" becoming a major factor in our societies.

Take me, I hate stupidity and evil for example, clearly hate speech, but I care about stupid people and evil people and want them to be good people and smart people.

How about hating war, oppression, mass murder and such things? That's also clearly hateful, and all hate is illegal and immoral according to the "new doctrine". Those same people who label facts as hate speech, are also the same people who ignore wars and mass murder, evil and oppression going on in the world.
The old "liberals" would actually raise their banner and protest wars, imperialism and oppression, while the "new liberals" don't do this, and might even support wars. They seem more busy with fighting for the rights of every single minority in the world, at the expense of the majority, and thus seek to oppress the majority, while allowing global crimes to go on, unpunished, and even directly or indirectly supporting them.
I don't get it, who are these people? And what is "hate speech"? How is it that these people now ascribe to the doctrines of the "neo-cons"? Have the war mongers, imperialists and the military industrial complex made a full switch and put their money on the liberals instead of the conservatives? Are the conservatives now the anti-war faction?

To me, "hate speech" seems to be central in all of this, and seems to be one of the tools used in an attempt to build an ever-lasting tyranny. So, how is it possible to fight an ever changing enemy that is relative and can label everything you say as "hate speech"? Even the truth is becoming hate speech these days. How is it possible to break this terrible cycle of oppression? Personally I now believe more than ever in the truth. And "love thy enemy", because if we cannot turn our enemy to also believe in the truth, then there will just be further division and more oppression. One side will demand oppression, while the other side will demand the truth, and this in the long run cannot work. Nobody will win in such a situation.

Even the language is being changed, they want to change the language!!! Warning, warning, warning. 1984. Not only thought crime and speech criminals, but the language police want to permanently alter the language in their favour. And again, "hate speech" is the central theme.
Is it even possible to define "hate speech"? Can it even be nailed down, and lines drawn as to what it is and can be? Or will it be an ever evolving term without any lines, that can be used to shift our whole society towards where they want us to be? Our thoughts, our speech and even the language itself. People counterargue this by saying "show me how people are jailed for speaking freely". But anyone who has read 1984 knows that this is now how it works. The population themselves are used to oppress the population, language is used to oppress and restrict thought patterns and expression, and then you have a wet hand to enforce this in form of secret police, bureaucratic madness and being told what to think. Yes, being told what to think.

I'm a firm believer in what I describe as: "the problem with media and politicians today is that the people are being told what and how to think". It's not reporting occurances as news, mostly it's opinions and implanting of thoughts into the minds of people, how to think about what they have been told/have seen happen, just now, on the news. Endless talks and "analyses" about situations to tell people what to think about it. Or just a short tiny indication at the end what to think about it. How do you formulate yourself when you report the news, can make two entirely different impressions of the same situation. And impressions is what it is about, not actually reporting what happened. That would allow for free interpretation, and if there is anything the media is good at, it's suppressing the possibility to freely interpret events.

I think "hate speech" is a convenient tool that can be used to label anything and anyone who goes against any of these things, who do not ascribe to their new idealism that have been imprinted on them by the media and politicians and organisations. A complimentary tool to this is ofcourse the frequently used "conspiracy theory" label that is used if anyone believe anything else than what they have been told is the reality.

So, what is "hate speech", how can we get rid of this concept and bury it once and for all, so that the truth may freely be discussed even tomorrow?

 

[Bum]

What is "hate speech"?

Recently, its anything said that someone across the aisle disagrees with.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Definition of Hate Speech
Noun
Speech that is intended to offend, insult, intimidate, or threaten an individual or group based on a trait or attribute, such as sexual orientation, religion, color, gender, or disability.


Definition of conspiracy theory
Noun
A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot.


OP, Hate speech is real. Conspiracy theories are real too. They are not “convenient” or “complimentary” tools meant for arbitrarily labeling opposing speech, unless the opposing speech is actually hate speech or conspiracy theories.

If someone calls you out for hate speech or pushing a conspiracy theory, challenge them to support their assertion or accept that they are correct, but don’t deny the fact that both things are real.

 

[Captain Adverse]

In my opinion hate speech...is a relative term and a tool of censorship and suppression of freedom of speech... Hate speech can be anything you want it to be and as such is a very popular and indefinite term. It is a danger to democracy, to freedom, to freedom of expression and thought, and to things like facts, sanity and reality.

...Is it even possible to define "hate speech"? Can it even be nailed down...? ...People counterargue...saying "show me how people are jailed for speaking freely". But anyone who has read 1984 knows that this is now how it works. The population themselves are used to oppress the population, language is used to oppress and restrict thought patterns and expression, and then you have a wet hand to enforce this in form of secret police, bureaucratic madness and being told what to think. Yes, being told what to think.

I'm a firm believer in what I describe as: "the problem with media and politicians today is that the people are being told what and how to think". It's not reporting occurances as news, mostly it's opinions and implanting of thoughts into the minds of people, how to think about what they have been told/have seen happen, just now, on the news. Endless talks and "analyses" about situations to tell people what to think about it. Or just a short tiny indication at the end what to think about it. How do you formulate yourself when you report the news, can make two entirely different impressions of the same situation. And impressions is what it is about, not actually reporting what happened. That would allow for free interpretation, and if there is anything the media is good at, it's suppressing the possibility to freely interpret events.

I think "hate speech" is a convenient tool that can be used to label anything and anyone who goes against any of these things, who do not ascribe to their new idealism that have been imprinted on them by the media and politicians and organisations...

So, what is "hate speech", how can we get rid of this concept and bury it once and for all, so that the truth may freely be discussed even tomorrow?

I had to pare down your OP to clarify the fundamental issue(s) raised, in order to discuss it. I pulled the following definition out of a legal resource site, as good a start as any:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Also recognize that "hate speech" is still protected free speech according to the SCOTUS:

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1293/

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949). Terminiello v. Chicago :: 337 U.S. 1 (1949) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Brandenburg v. Ohio :: 395 U.S. 444 (1969) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie :: 432 U.S. 43 (1977) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (90-7675), 505 U.S. 377 (1992). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/343/

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/562/443/

In all the above cases, SCOTUS has determined that other than under certain narrow constraints, "hate speech" however offensive is still "free speech" protected by the 1st Amendment from government interference/censorship.

How groups or individuals may react to it non-violently is also free expression.

So, I have defined hate speech for you, and pointed out it is still "free speech" as far as government-enforced censorship is concerned. The problem lies in how social groups and the media attempt to curtail free speech.

Special interest groups controlling the media have been using tactics of propaganda to direct those easily led via moral panic to "react" emotionally rather than rationally to "dog whistle" reports. This is leading to violence at the personal level which is tolerated and even encouraged to a certain point. (Think the many examples of MAGA hat knee-jerk responses.)

We get rid of it by recognizing where this labeling is coming from, why it is being generated, parse it out and then address it in rational discourse preserving freedom of expression and real tolerance, not intolerance masquerading as opposition to intolerance.

 

[cabse5]

The 'protected classes' can't be accused of hate speech crimes any more than 'those in authority' can be victims of hate speech crimes. For example, Smollett can't be accused of hate speech crimes and your neighbor cop can't be a victim of hate speech crimes.

Hate speech crimes are a form of soft reparations. It is a political crime. It should be removed from existence.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

How groups or individuals may react to it non-violently is also free expression.

Also violence, harassment, persecution and unlawful termination of contracts (ex. work)?

The problem lies in how social groups and the media attempt to curtail free speech.

I think we agree on this, that's a good way to nail it down. But I would include politicians as partakers in this.

Special interest groups controlling the media have been using tactics of propaganda to direct those easily led via moral panic to "react" emotionally rather than rationally to "dog whistle" reports. This is leading to violence at the personal level which is tolerated and even encouraged to a certain point. (Think the many examples of MAGA hat knee-jerk responses.)

Well said, I agree with this. In actuality it is the ultimate "social injustice" in my opinion. I also happen to regard the "emotional thinking" as big problem of our times.

We get rid of it by recognizing where this labeling is coming from, why it is being generated, parse it out and then address it in rational discourse preserving freedom of expression and real tolerance, not intolerance masquerading as opposition to intolerance.

Hmm. How can this be done in such a judgemental and intolerant situation? Illogical even, those who preach tolerance are themselves extremely intolerant and judgemental. It's like a hostile environment altogether. It's quite scary actually. You now have so-called intellectuals, "professors" etc inflaming the situation even further, and also becoming preachers of this kind of ideology, and exacerbating the problem and furthering this kind of ideology among the young. I've talked to extremist professors masquerading as authoritative intellectuals. I think this is not just a few individuals in that kind of environment, but a general theme among them. If even so-called intellectuals let themselves be controlled by radicalism and irrational emotions, then how can it be expected that "normal" people can be persuaded in a rational and logical way?

 

[TheParser]

A Supreme Court justice once said that he could NOT define "pornography" BUT that he knew pornography when he saw it.

So I think that we can all recognize genuine "hate speech" when we hear or read it.


Today's problem, however, is that people in power define mere offensive speech as "hate speech," so that's the reason for the current censorship on the Web.

As individuals, there is NOTHING that we can do about this situation. Just live with it.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Definition of Hate Speech
Noun
Speech that is intended to offend, insult, intimidate, or threaten an individual or group based on a trait or attribute, such as sexual orientation, religion, color, gender, or disability.


Definition of conspiracy theory
Noun
A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot.


OP, Hate speech is real. Conspiracy theories are real too. They are not “convenient” or “complimentary” tools meant for arbitrarily labeling opposing speech, unless the opposing speech is actually hate speech or conspiracy theories.

If someone calls you out for hate speech or pushing a conspiracy theory, challenge them to support their assertion or accept that they are correct, but don’t deny the fact that both things are real.

The problem is that pretty much anything nowadays is labelled as racism, fascism, nazi's, intolerance, x-phobic just as soon as anyone get a sense that it goes against their ideology. Not sure how it is in the US in practice, but in Europe it is becoming a rather big problem. I note that I myself have started slapping things as "conspiracy theory" just to make fun of this kind of labelling, and on "popular beliefs" that are in fact nothing but conspiracy theories (there is a conspiracy! but we cannot prove it..). Ofcourse, this is the wrong approach, but I do it demonstratively. I don't think there is anything wrong with conspiracy theories, especially if they are backed up by philosophical reasoning. The problem of evidence and proof does not change this in my opinion. If I have good reason to believe something and have argued about this logically, I personally think it is a fallacy to demand me to prove (personally) such a complex topic. It would take years and it might not even be possible, even if the conspiracy is true! I don't promote conspiracy theories as definite things, just according to likelihood.

I think "conspiracy theory" as a label is not as important anymore, the main label is "hate" or any of the things listed above (x-phobic etc). The conspiracy theory label is a good backup to those labels and compliments them.

I'm not dogmatic about my own beliefs though, I actually wish people to prove me wrong, and I'm fully willing to admit I was wrong, if enough good arguments or convincing evidence or logic would point me in the direction that it was necessary to adjust.

But is the other side of arguments like this? I'm not a label-x or label-y. I'm not a conservative or liberal or left or right or rep-dem or anything like that. I'm a cross specter independent that don't belong in any of those categories at all, and agree with some and disagree with some of all label-x'ers and label-y'ers. But for sake of arguments, just let's assume I am against the "libtards" at the moment and most things they stand for. Are those people equally open about their opinions? Or are they dogmatic?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

A Supreme Court justice once said that he could NOT define "pornography" BUT that he knew pornography when he saw it.

So I think that we can all recognize genuine "hate speech" when we hear or read it.


Today's problem, however, is that people in power define mere offensive speech as "hate speech," so that's the reason for the current censorship on the Web.

As individuals, there is NOTHING that we can do about this situation. Just live with it.

Well, I certainly feel the difference between hate speech and general negative or critical speech. It has something to do with the intention behind it, and this is not easily "scientifically" provable. It is more of a feeling or something that can be argued philosophically. Can people really recognize genuine "hate speech" as you say, or do everyone have a different line in the sand and opinion about it? That's the problem as well.

Let's say as a real example, I hate transvestites and find them disgusting. I hate them for being such tyrants and wanting to oppress the majority in favour of a tiny minority. I find them disgusting for obvious reasons. But on the other side, I always argue that I believe in equal human rights and rights before the law for ALL individuals, including transvestites. I just don't think they should have the right to promote their rather abnormal and niche lifestyle to the rest of society at the expense of the rights of all children and the rest of society. I don't hate these people really, I just hate what they do. I don't want them anything ill, I just want them not to force their ills on the rest of society. And how can I present my full view on this and the whole argument when it is immediately labelled as "hate speech"? Now you are no longer allowed to argue against lgb Tyrants propaganda directed at children in school? People just selectively hear or read what they want without taking the whole argument into consideration? Is it hate to find something repulsive?

I could in actuality switch "transvestites" in this argument with "politicians" as well. Which makes the hate speech label/argument even more ridiculous.

Anyways, bla bla. I'll probably get warned for my opinion. Point is, that it is a complex topic, and many people would immediately label it as hate speech, although, it is not.

I went back the the post of Captain Adverse here to double check "the" definition of hate speech, just to notice I did not read it properly the first time, AND noticed the major problem with the whole thing. He said:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

I think that is the major problem in all this. Any form of expression regarded as offensive. That surely cannot be something that was concocted in a court of law? I think it is also not possible to uphold that in a court of law as it is exponentially imprecise. Anyone can take offence for anything! Eye of the beholder law.

 

[Acadia]

Today, "hate speech" is mostly censorship parading as morality.

 

[Acadia]

A Supreme Court justice once said that he could NOT define "pornography" BUT that he knew pornography when he saw it.

So I think that we can all recognize genuine "hate speech" when we hear or read it.


Today's problem, however, is that people in power define mere offensive speech as "hate speech," so that's the reason for the current censorship on the Web.

As individuals, there is NOTHING that we can do about this situation. Just live with it.

Further, "offensive" speech is often times expression of opinions which others disagree. So in order to suppress opposing views, they label it "hate speech" and use terms like "dog whistle" to make straw man arguments which misrepresent the meaning of someone's words and their intentions.

 

[code1211]

The 'protected classes' can't be accused of hate speech crimes any more than 'those in authority' can be victims of hate speech crimes. For example, Smollett can't be accused of hate speech crimes and your neighbor cop can't be a victim of hate speech crimes.

Hate speech crimes are a form of soft reparations. It is a political crime. It should be removed from existence.

Is wearing a hat hate speech?

 

[TheParser]

Well, I certainly feel the difference between hate speech and general negative or critical speech. It has something to do with the intention behind it, and this is not easily "scientifically" provable. It is more of a feeling or something that can be argued philosophically. Can people really recognize genuine "hate speech" as you say, or do everyone have a different line in the sand and opinion about it? That's the problem as well.

Let's say as a real example, I hate transvestites and find them disgusting. I hate them for being such tyrants and wanting to oppress the majority in favour of a tiny minority. I find them disgusting for obvious reasons. But on the other side, I always argue that I believe in equal human rights and rights before the law for ALL individuals, including transvestites. I just don't think they should have the right to promote their rather abnormal and niche lifestyle to the rest of society at the expense of the rights of all children and the rest of society. I don't hate these people really, I just hate what they do. I don't want them anything ill, I just want them not to force their ills on the rest of society. And how can I present my full view on this and the whole argument when it is immediately labelled as "hate speech"? Now you are no longer allowed to argue against lgb Tyrants propaganda directed at children in school? People just selectively hear or read what they want without taking the whole argument into consideration? Is it hate to find something repulsive?

I could in actuality switch "transvestites" in this argument with "politicians" as well. Which makes the hate speech label/argument even more ridiculous.

Anyways, bla bla. I'll probably get warned for my opinion. Point is, that it is a complex topic, and many people would immediately label it as hate speech, although, it is not.

I went back the the post of Captain Adverse here to double check "the" definition of hate speech, just to notice I did not read it properly the first time, AND noticed the major problem with the whole thing. He said:



I think that is the major problem in all this. Any form of expression regarded as offensive. That surely cannot be something that was concocted in a court of law? I think it is also not possible to uphold that in a court of law as it is exponentially imprecise. Anyone can take offence for anything! Eye of the beholder law.

Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.

As you mentioned, posters must be very careful, lest they receive a "warning."

So I will drop this hot potato and wish you a nice weekend.

 

[cabse5]

Is wearing a hat hate speech?

No more than wearing a leprechaun's hat in Harlem is.

 

[code1211]

No more than wearing a leprechaun's hat in Harlem is.

Who gets beat up when they're wearing either hat?

The guy wearing the hat or the haters beating up the guy wearing the hat?

Does a Green Derby elicit the same rage as a MAGA hat?

 

[cabse5]

Who gets beat up when they're wearing either hat?

The guy wearing the hat or the haters beating up the guy wearing the hat?

Does a Green Derby elicit the same rage as a MAGA hat?

You are defending hate speech accusations without considering first amendment speech considerations. I suppose you could read the freedom of speech part of the first amendment for clarity...

 

[code1211]

You are defending hate speech accusations without considering first amendment speech considerations. I suppose you could read the freedom of speech part of the first amendment for clarity...

That's not at all what I'm doing.

If I wear a Vikings hat while visiting Green Bay and get beat up, am I hating or are the beater-uppers hating?

The same is true of wearers of MAGA Hats, X Hats, Obama Hats and so on.

Why is wearing a hat that declares an affiliation considered to be hate speech?

I call to evidence that 115 pound parochial school kid condemned by our media and the surrounding mob. Why was he condemned simply for wearing a hat?

He was not hating, but he was hated. A MAGA hat is most certainly NOT Hate Speech. It is a hat showing affiliation. Nothing more.

Why you accept wearing a MAGA hat as hate speech speaks volume of both the indoctrinators and your indoctrination.

What is the basis of your disagreement with the phrase "Make America Great Again"?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The problem is that pretty much anything nowadays is labelled as racism, fascism, nazi's, intolerance, x-phobic just as soon as anyone get a sense that it goes against their ideology. Not sure how it is in the US in practice, but in Europe it is becoming a rather big problem. I note that I myself have started slapping things as "conspiracy theory" just to make fun of this kind of labelling, and on "popular beliefs" that are in fact nothing but conspiracy theories (there is a conspiracy! but we cannot prove it..). Ofcourse, this is the wrong approach, but I do it demonstratively. I don't think there is anything wrong with conspiracy theories, especially if they are backed up by philosophical reasoning. The problem of evidence and proof does not change this in my opinion. If I have good reason to believe something and have argued about this logically, I personally think it is a fallacy to demand me to prove (personally) such a complex topic. It would take years and it might not even be possible, even if the conspiracy is true! I don't promote conspiracy theories as definite things, just according to likelihood.

I think "conspiracy theory" as a label is not as important anymore, the main label is "hate" or any of the things listed above (x-phobic etc). The conspiracy theory label is a good backup to those labels and compliments them.

I'm not dogmatic about my own beliefs though, I actually wish people to prove me wrong, and I'm fully willing to admit I was wrong, if enough good arguments or convincing evidence or logic would point me in the direction that it was necessary to adjust.

But is the other side of arguments like this? I'm not a label-x or label-y. I'm not a conservative or liberal or left or right or rep-dem or anything like that. I'm a cross specter independent that don't belong in any of those categories at all, and agree with some and disagree with some of all label-x'ers and label-y'ers. But for sake of arguments, just let's assume I am against the "libtards" at the moment and most things they stand for. Are those people equally open about their opinions? Or are they dogmatic?

While I respect your right to believe what you want and to express the same, there seems to be a translation problem with your idea of what a conspiracy theory is. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, untrue/flawed beliefs of events, their causes, and those involved.

An actual example from a well known conspiracy theorist here in the U.S., Alex Jones. Jones claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre where 26 people, including 20 little children aged 6 and 7, who were shot to death by a 20 year old with a rifle, was a “false flag” and “purely synthetic”. Like most conspiracies, part of what Jones has said is true, but the most important parts were complete lies.

Conspiracy theories, and those who create them should be called out every single time. Not doing so allows the lie to continue to spread, further expanding our “post truth” country.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Further, "offensive" speech is often times expression of opinions which others disagree. So in order to suppress opposing views, they label it "hate speech" and use terms like "dog whistle" to make straw man arguments which misrepresent the meaning of someone's words and their intentions.

And those who use hate speech often make excuses like the ones above ^^.

 

[Acadia]

And those who use hate speech often make excuses like the ones above ^^.

Thank you for proving my point!!!
Could you just hear those dog whistles while reading my non-offensive post clearly expressing my opinion as I have a right to do here on DP?

Me thinks I cut a bit to close to the quick...

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thank you for proving my point!!!
Could you just hear those dog whistles while reading my non-offensive post clearly expressing my opinion as I have a right to do here on DP?

Me thinks I cut a bit to close to the quick...

Wrong.

I didn’t and don’t disagree that you have a point. My remark is simply the logical counterpoint.

Hope I didn’t hurt your feelings much.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

While I respect your right to believe what you want and to express the same, there seems to be a translation problem with your idea of what a conspiracy theory is. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, untrue/flawed beliefs of events, their causes, and those involved.

An actual example from a well known conspiracy theorist here in the U.S., Alex Jones. Jones claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre where 26 people, including 20 little children aged 6 and 7, who were shot to death by a 20 year old with a rifle, was a “false flag” and “purely synthetic”. Like most conspiracies, part of what Jones has said is true, but the most important parts were complete lies.

Conspiracy theories, and those who create them should be called out every single time. Not doing so allows the lie to continue to spread, further expanding our “post truth” country.

I was referring to the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. And I'm not sure the "definition" you are trying to enforce is correct. Conspiracy is one thing, and a theory about it generally means that someone has a theory about a conspiracy. As long as it is not proven true, it is a conspiracy theory, and not a conspiracy.

But then again, they try to change our language, and alot of people these days think the definition of democracy is to be able to choose plague or cholera, or said in other words "2 options, (or more)". While the real meaning of democracy is "people-power" or "people-rule", or better said in English in the words on Lincoln "of the people, for the people and by the people". In most European languages there is a local word for democracy in their language, and it can be translated to the two expressions above, as directly translated into English. But with the manipulation of language, it has come to mean something which is not true, and I think the same applies to conspiracy theory, which actually is pretty self-evident what it actually means.

Sure that thing about Alex Jones and the school, that's definitely a conspiracy theory, but by the same definition, so is the Trump/Russia thing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I was referring to the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. And I'm not sure the "definition" you are trying to enforce is correct. Conspiracy is one thing, and a theory about it generally means that someone has a theory about a conspiracy. As long as it is not proven true, it is a conspiracy theory, and not a conspiracy.

But then again, they try to change our language, and alot of people these days think the definition of democracy is to be able to choose plague or cholera, or said in other words "2 options, (or more)". While the real meaning of democracy is "people-power" or "people-rule", or better said in English in the words on Lincoln "of the people, for the people and by the people". In most European languages there is a local word for democracy in their language, and it can be translated to the two expressions above, as directly translated into English. But with the manipulation of language, it has come to mean something which is not true, and I think the same applies to conspiracy theory, which actually is pretty self-evident what it actually means.

Sure that thing about Alex Jones and the school, that's definitely a conspiracy theory, but by the same definition, so is the Trump/Russia thing.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

conspiracy theory noun
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Conspiracy Theory | Definition of Conspiracy Theory by Merriam-Webster
Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.
conspiracy theory | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica.com
A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely.
Conspiracy theory definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
conspiracy theory
noun [ C ] UK /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪə.ri/ US /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪr.i/
a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people
CONSPIRACY THEORY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

You are entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

And as for the “Trump/Russia thing”, we’re all still waiting for answers from Mueller.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Sure.. Ok..

 

[SoCal]

The 'protected classes' can't be accused of hate speech crimes any more than 'those in authority' can be victims of hate speech crimes. For example, Smollett can't be accused of hate speech crimes and your neighbor cop can't be a victim of hate speech crimes.

Hate speech crimes are a form of soft reparations. It is a political crime. It should be removed from existence.

I'm unaware of any hate speech that's considered a crime, you're not confusing hate speech with hate crimes are you? If not I'd like to read about them if you have a link...