> Nah. I disagree. In Germany, its illegal to be nazi-sympathizing. As someone who disagrees with Nazi ideology, I think that sort of law (and societal environment) is healthy and don't think we should protect that.
Well, yeah, they were throwing people in gas chambers over there—context matters. Here, you might get a small group of assholes wearing armbands and shaving their heads. And, because they're nazis, they're likely gigantic pussies who aren't going to do anything (and if they do, guys like me will just shoot them). It's moot.
> So any topic that is related to a party platform is political?
Is that what I said? No. And I'm making a guess.
> "Gay" marriage is an important issue in many countries.
You didn't say anything about gay marriage, you said marriage.
> Hate speech is not just speech "that people don't like".
Yes, it is. Unless someone takes physical _action_, "sticks and stones" applies. What's also troublesome about "hate speech" is who gets to define it. Once that cat's out of the bag, all hell breaks loose (what we've seen the past few years is the prototype). People should be free to speak and deal with the social consequences of that speech just like they have for hundreds of years.
> Also why should platforms be forced to host speech that is hateful?
Because they're taking advantage of other protections offered by the U.S. government and operating a U.S. based company which operates under U.S. law (and by extension, the constitution). If they're that concerned about preventing a few assholes from saying stupid stuff, they should move their servers out of the U.S. I'd rather see those companies going after real crimes like scams, pedophiles, etc—not people getting their feelings hurt.
Ultimately, banning speech further excites extreme behavior because those people don't have an outlet. It's far more likely that they'll be corrected (or simply ignored) by others if they're uncensored than they would if they were censored.
Notice how for the first ~15-20 years of the internet, there was no nazi panic? They were around. Nobody paid them any mind. They didn't accomplish anything (and were on no trajectory to do so). Does that mean they're good? Of course not. But I'd rather they have their skinhead jamboree on a forum rather than go after gay people on the street for being "those people who took our speech away."