That’s like saying “I wanted an example of someone being put in jail for just marijuana possession, and also not being arrested.”
Not everyone objecting against immigration legally commits hate speech (or is claimed by the police/prosecution to commit hate speech), while everyone who is put in jail has been arrested.
It’s something you guys made up in order to stop free speech.
The legal concept of hate speech is made up, of course (just like all legal concepts), but the phenomenon of hate speech is very, very real. (Or maybe you mean that xenophobic hate speech is made up but other kinds of hate speech aren’t, in which case I have to say that specific kind of hate speech is, unfortunately, very real as well.)
To hopefully be a little clearer: Calling something hate speech, and banning it for that reason, is the method by which Europe bans this kind of speech. Saying “it doesn’t count because they’re just banning hate speech” is equivalent to “it doesn’t count because they’re banning it in the way they usually do”.
If the typical method of doing X automatically makes it not count—just because it’s using the typical method—then of course you’ll have trouble finding examples of X.
So hate speech is real (independently of whether someone puts the phrase “hate speech” into law or not), and the typical way of being anti-immigration involves hate speech. I agree. I don’t see what the problem is—it’s up to the anti-immigration activists to find a way to protest that wouldn’t be hate speech. The fact that until now, they usually used hate speech, is purely their problem, and purely their fault.
Alternatively, what you’re saying could also be interpreted as claiming that Europe abuses the phrase hate speech to ban non-hate-speech discourse (which becomes “hate speech” upon the speech being legally banned)… but that’s not true.
Not everyone objecting against immigration legally commits hate speech (or is claimed by the police/prosecution to commit hate speech), while everyone who is put in jail has been arrested.
The legal concept of hate speech is made up, of course (just like all legal concepts), but the phenomenon of hate speech is very, very real. (Or maybe you mean that xenophobic hate speech is made up but other kinds of hate speech aren’t, in which case I have to say that specific kind of hate speech is, unfortunately, very real as well.)
To hopefully be a little clearer: Calling something hate speech, and banning it for that reason, is the method by which Europe bans this kind of speech. Saying “it doesn’t count because they’re just banning hate speech” is equivalent to “it doesn’t count because they’re banning it in the way they usually do”.
If the typical method of doing X automatically makes it not count—just because it’s using the typical method—then of course you’ll have trouble finding examples of X.
So hate speech is real (independently of whether someone puts the phrase “hate speech” into law or not), and the typical way of being anti-immigration involves hate speech. I agree. I don’t see what the problem is—it’s up to the anti-immigration activists to find a way to protest that wouldn’t be hate speech. The fact that until now, they usually used hate speech, is purely their problem, and purely their fault.
Alternatively, what you’re saying could also be interpreted as claiming that Europe abuses the phrase hate speech to ban non-hate-speech discourse (which becomes “hate speech” upon the speech being legally banned)… but that’s not true.
The typical way of being anti-immigration “involves hate speech” because “hate speech” is so broadly defined that it’s just about impossible not to.
European governments get to define hate speech, so activists can’t find such a way, if the governments don’t want them to have one.