They aren't equivalent restrictions at all. One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
Some people shrug and say, “Inciting a crime indirectly shouldn’t be a crime.” Others say, “Inciting a crime indirectly might be a crime, it depends on how indirectly, we need to talk about where to draw the line.” Others might say, “Inciting a crime ought to be a crime, but because there’s no unambiguous way to draw the line, we can’t make a law against it” and so on.
So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
Not always. Hate speech is just that - if you're dumb enough to go and do something stupid based on what someone else says, that's your fault, not his.
Neither. It's an opinion, which should not only be allowed, but there should not even be a debate. Also, people seem to forget that, up until recently, it was okay to say that you wanted the death of an entire group of people. What wasn't okay was to single out a specific, identifiable person. Now, the former is becoming the norm, and you can see this actually covered in many online Terms of Service, which is, on its face, ridiculous in the extreme.
"But I don't think anyone is saying that 'hate speech' is just the expression of ideas. It's the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour."
I AM SAYING THAT. I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you see the swastika on my arm, yet that same swastika can get me arrested in some places. Likewise, I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you hear certain words that I might say. I don't control what goes on inside of your brain when certain auditory or visual impulses hit it.
I AM SERIOUSLY UPSET THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD. You actually believe that the mere conveyance of opinion should be banned because it might cause someone to do something. Think about what kind of world your children and their children will have if this kind of thinking becomes even more pervasive.
The true meaning of life is to continuously evolve towards some end, of which we are presently unaware. Said evolution requires unfettered communication to proceed apace, especially given that "evolution" is now becoming less rampantly biological and more self-directed, such as through technology, particularly nanotechnology. When said communication is censored, in any fashion, evolutionary progress is hampered. Thus, any act of censorship stands against life itself, and is therefore "evil" in the truest sense of the word. That is my belief. It's extreme, it's in the minority, it's completely at odds with yours, and I will firmly hold onto this belief until the day I die.
Eh, by that logic we should jail all Marxists due to their belief that a worldwide Communist revolution will require violence. Or anarchist newsletters for even discussing the violant takeover of the United States. Or any of many legitimate political viewpoints which incorporate violence as a possible solution to ideological problems. Even Malcom X would fall under this purview.
I don't think this is a very strong argument at all.
This is why the US law generally allows even inciting speech as long as it does not cause an immediate threat of violence.
They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics.
> One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.