My mistake for confusing hate speech directly with hate crime. Hate speech can turn a crime into a “hate crime” and that’s my mistake for conflating the two. In my original post the thought behind it was hateful speech with an incitement towards violence - either way, I can agree that speech itself shouldn’t be illegal even if hateful, and I agree with where the law is that if it calls for violence against a group it can constitute a crime.

> My point was that you complain about about speech being suppressed, but ignore the same when it comes to things like hate speech and DEI.

I think it’s very clear - the government shouldn’t be infringing on speech. Hateful or not - so long as the speech doesn’t coincide with calls to action or other things that cause said speech to become part of a crime. And even then, it’s still less about the speech - that’s not the illegal part (as you correct earlier) - it’s about the actions that may rise to the level of a crime.

Overall I still don’t know how DEI works into any of this and I’d like for you to elaborate on that part.