That is historically plain wrong, the oppressive majority typically invokes public safety to suppress the speech of the oppressed, not "hate speech".
Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".
That's because "public safety" was the tool they had at their disposal. Unless you think their claims that public safety was threatened were credible, what makes you think that when they can use "hate speech" AND "public safety", they'll just use "public safety"?
Wait, let's not think about hypotheticals. Let's think about actual restrictions of rights and how they've played out. Who gets arrested for racist speech in the UK? Nigel Farage? UKIP members? Nah. Some college student who, as admin of an organization, said white people shouldn't come to her minority events.[1]
Well, that's a bummer. But surely Germany knows how to handle hate speech right? Well, unless you offend a friendly head of state; then my dear, it's a legal process for you! [2]
Man, you know what's awesome? Ensuring that the state doesn't take religious sides. For that, we shall ban all religious symbols in schools, as France did. Surely this will not affect members of a minority religion, right? Certainly Muslim schoolgirls won't be suspended over headscarves. [3]
If you give the state the power to deny rights, they will deny them to the people it's easiest to deny them from.
You seriously argue that Nazi Germany was forced to invoke "public safety" because of legislative impediments to using "hate speech" as a basis? They were free to choose any basis, and the one chosen clearly contradicts your original argument.
I guess I should not be surprised by the cherry picking that follows, where you appear to find one discontinued investigation among the 66000 recorded that year[1] a compelling story on how hate crime legislation is only used to persecute minorities.
It is depressing how you use examples of prejudice by state representatives as a basis for arguing against the protection of those being persecuted.
Thanks for calling me out on the cherry picking. It was unserious of me to do that.
I started out convinced I’m right. You haven’t changed my mind, but I need to look up some info to have a firmer grasp of consequences.
Informally, hate speech laws are a tool that can be wielded by whoever is in power. Either that power is trustworthy enough, or it isn’t. You haven’t given me reason to believe it is, but you’ve made me seriously question why I think it isn’t.
Re: Nazis—again, it’s a tool for whoever has power. If hate speech had been a concept in the 30s, I can’t imagine Nazis not prosecuting dissenters for hate speech against them.
Apartheid, DDR, Nazi Germany, and slaver states all used variations of public safety to restrict free speech as part of their systems of oppression, and none invoked anything close to "hate speech".