Edit: In many countries, hate speech does in fact have a definition. Just because it's not in the US legal code doesn't mean it's undefined - that's why your right wing media personalities can have trouble coming into Canada.
you know this is a joke amongst the actual extreme-right. the Christchurch guy even said Candace Owens radicalized him. they say it because they don't like ben shapiro and they want to tarnish his name it seams to be working.
(Note that this also implies that politics plays basically no causal role in what he did - and yet, this basic fact about the Christchurch event makes me extremely nervous about alt-right or hate content nonetheless. In fact, it makes me more nervous, not less! Because if it turns out that criminal psychopaths can easily exploit this sort of content as an excuse or pretext for their murderous acts, that's definitely something we want to know. Do note that, plausibly, "rational debate" and the like - the usual arguments for maximum free speech! - do not apply to psychopaths in general; these individuals entirely lack affective empathy or a moral sense, and even their theory-of-mind abilities (without which no "debate" can plausibly exist!) might be severely degraded, at least when it comes to 'deep' reasoning about others' affects/emotions, goals, perspectives etc.)
Some politics is sociopathic. Some is perhaps better characterized as nihilist. Accelerationism, which is what is advocated by the Christchurch shooter, is both sociopathic and nihilistic.
Do note that, plausibly, "rational debate" and the like - the usual arguments for maximum free speech! - do not apply to psychopaths in general; these individuals entirely lack affective empathy or a moral sense, and even their theory-of-mind abilities
If you go and look at the documented video of both Far Left and Far Right extremists committing acts of violence, intimidation, and vandalism, you will see precisely what you have described above. "These individuals entirely lack affective empathy or a moral sense." This is actually why you want to accord them Free Speech. If civic discourse is operating correctly, such people inevitably reveal themselves for what they really are. The problem with 2019 and recent years, is that civic discourse and the news media are broken, and much of the complete picture may be hidden from view from within a particular information bubble.
You're tying to equivocate throwing a milkshake at a politician with actual violence.
>https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/03...
Um. You do realize that politifact article ends with "reported incidents are going up, total incidents are going down", right?
Here:
> Analyses of the National Crime Victimization Survey indicated that the majority of crime victimizations were not reported to the police from 2009 to 2014. Reported victimizations have picked up, and unreported incidents have went down since 2015, after a significant drop in both categories in 2014.
And their "Share The Facts" summary: "Only for reported crimes"
Finally, throwing milkshakes, just like throwing rotten fruit, is violence - mild violence, but still a very different thing than speech.
It's not limited to milkshakes. Lets apply some symmetry, say that the hateful rhetoric from the left has fanned Islamic attacks [1], or is what caused two black teens pouring gasoline on a white 13-year old, saying "This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy." as they set him on fire [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20184712
[2] https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teenagers-poured-g...
Citation needed