No, hate speech is not protected under the first amendment if it promotes violence or direct threats to individuals. That's what was happening on campuses.
Come on man, anything can be classified as "hate speech," it all depends on who is doing the classification. I think it's almost unbelievable you brought it up here. "Hate speech" is only hate if it's against "protected groups." You can guess which groups are protected and which not. It's all
opinion.
I don't know exactly which statements on campuses you are referring to, but for example:
Saying "IDF are terrorists" is probably viewed as hate speech by you and many others. But since terrorism means targeting civilians that statement should be allowed imo, at least you can debate it. Of course saying Hamas are terrorists isn't hate speech, although to someone else it might be a legitimate resistance movement covered by international law. Of course you won't agree, but what I'm saying is that it's not black and white. Or if protesters say "from the river to the sea" they will say it implies Holocausting the Jews, but no one is coming after someone talking about 'Greater Israel.' And obviously we have the new definition of antisemitism which includes criticism of the Israeli state, it's "hate."
IMO saying Israel is a terror state, was founded with terrorist tactics, in fact modern terrorism was invented in Israel, is all fact but it's hate speech in much of the world.From Wiki, you can read the whole article there.
IHRA definition of antisemitism
Antisemitism is hatred toward Jews because they are Jews and is directed toward the Jewish religion and Jews individually or collectively. More recently, antisemitism has been manifested in the demonization of the State of Israel.
"Accompanying the working definition are 11 illustrative examples, seven of which relate to criticism of Israel, that the IHRA describes as guiding its work on antisemitism."
"The examples relating to Israel have been criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that they are often used to weaponize antisemitism in order to stifle free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. High-profile controversies took place in the United Kingdom in 2011 within the University and College Union, and within the Labour Party in 2018. Critics say weaknesses in the working definition may lend themselves to abuse, that it may obstruct campaigning for the rights of Palestinians (as in the Palestine exception), and that it is too vague.[14][15][c] Kenneth S. Stern, who contributed to the original draft, has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might undermine free speech."Regarding the Left Wing, and I'm trying to understand it myself, what are the main differences that cause this hard divide between a left winger liberal and a conservative right winger? I can sense some of it as well. You often hear from many, on getbig too, that liberals are mentally ill and can't think, they "have no brains!" Recently I saw a few argue that in the past it was usual for families to lose maybe even half of their children as infants, now almost everyone survives, no matter how unfit and weak they are. So the argument goes that these weak specimens who are genetically inferior and mentally ill... they are now today's Democrats and Liberals! They literally do have something wrong with their brains! Without researching it, would you automatically dismiss this theory?
Of course, right wingers have been accused by Jew Marxists psychiatrists of being genetically mentally ill too, or at least have been infected with a brain virus.
