There's also the concept of "speech is violence". The parent comment makes the assertion that there is a difference between hate speech and speech that incites violence.
While the line seems very clear, the issue becomes when you start redefining what "violence" is, or start extrapolating. Say you go out and make a disparaging comment about a protected class, the comment is disparaging but it does not directly call for violence.
An argument will be made my some that even though your comment does not cause violence, a crazy person will hear your comment and then proceed to commit violence based off of that. You can extrapolate that to almost anything.
I can say "I think Javascript is a terrible programming language". Some crazy will take that to mean: "JS is terrible, therefore all JS devs are terrible, therefore I need to go out and commit violence against JS devs". The argument could be made here that the comment "I think javascript is a terrible programming language" is actually a call to violence because someone interpreted it that way.
While the line seems very clear, the issue becomes when you start redefining what "violence" is, or start extrapolating. Say you go out and make a disparaging comment about a protected class, the comment is disparaging but it does not directly call for violence.
An argument will be made my some that even though your comment does not cause violence, a crazy person will hear your comment and then proceed to commit violence based off of that. You can extrapolate that to almost anything.
I can say "I think Javascript is a terrible programming language". Some crazy will take that to mean: "JS is terrible, therefore all JS devs are terrible, therefore I need to go out and commit violence against JS devs". The argument could be made here that the comment "I think javascript is a terrible programming language" is actually a call to violence because someone interpreted it that way.