I'm no lawyer either, but I think you are likely to have a very hard time finding someone who is, yet imagines "hate speech" to be a concept with any existence in the law of the United States.

Of all the principles we've ever espoused in this country, we have perhaps been most consistent in our national conviction that the answer to wrong speech is right speech - not less speech but more speech.

That is, until recently. We've lately seen the rise of a strain of thought in which not only is it acceptable to answer mere words - however cruel - with the full and mighty force of law, but to suggest such a course might reasonably inspire trepidation is itself worthy at best of contempt, and the many examples in history of why such trepidation might be justified are ignored in unseemly haste to crush those who speak in a fashion deemed insufficiently satisfactory.

In such a strain of thought, the problem with McCarthyism is not McCarthyism in its own right, but rather that the direction in which it was pointed was wrong - the weapon should not be put down and never picked up again, but merely wielded against a different target than last time.

Is that really the lesson to draw from such an unsavory example? Is there really any practical benefit in such a lesson for the causes such a strain of thought claims so loudly to espouse? The left has fought to silence its opponents for decades, more or less by whatever means fell to hand. The result thus produced, this very month, is remarkable, but not for its loveliness. It will not grow more lovely with time. Does it really seem likely that the tactics which have brought us to such a strait are blameless, and that only more energy is required?

Is it illegal to call people fat in this country now? Serious question. At first I was inclined to ridicule your position, but I have to wonder how far the 'hate crime' legislation has progressed.

> I'm no lawyer, but I think that's treading awfully close to "hate speech".

How about caricature of public figures? Note that they do not have to be tasteful or respectful. Just look at bankers depicted as pigs.

I am neither american nor a lawyer, but as I understand it hate speech has a fairly narrow definition over there. It requires imminent danger of inciting violence. Merely expressing racist or other kinds of -ist viewpoints is not hate speech.

Profession is not a "protected group" (those are traditionally race, gender, age, religion, disability, and depending on the jurisdiction, sexual orientation).

Personal insults are not "hate speech".

Its a fine line between protecting the oppressed and being oppressive. When you misapply "hate speech" by using it to describe satire, or humor in bad taste, you run the risk of losing the "hate speech" tool to devaluation, blow-back and more satire. Some things deserve a response and others really are best ignored.

You are reaching for some quite indirect logic here. As someone regularly frequenting 4chan I can assure you that the sole target of the cuck insult is the male's pride.

Of course it being a sexul insult it is practically unavoidable that values and the female partner are indirectly involved in how the insult works. Well, technically homosexual couples can also cuck each other, and I have seen the term occasionally used in discussion about homosexual manga. So it really is not about the female.

Hell, even the fairly juvenile "ur mom" is more negative towards females than "cuck".

When women are attacked you will notice. Slut and whale are still the go-to insults.

So please do not shoehorn gender issues into everything. Sure, some assumptions are encoded into it. But it's a goddamn insult, not some friendly disagreement in a debate club. Please adjust your context sensitivity.