"Hate" speech implies to any utterance that expresses degrading views about communities or individuals identified by such characteristics as sex, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual preference. This sort of speech poses a conflict between two important values, freedom, and equality. Most people may be hesitant in this situation to accept the side of free expression; some may even insist it is unethical. Nonetheless, the law opposes any legal limitations on, or control of, hate speech, and the reasons for expanding legal protection to it are very strong.
First of all, there is the simplistic defense that although hate speech may convey offensive and depreciating views, simply because it communicates a point of view, it is level with any other point of vie view covered by freedom of speech. Hence, it can be limited no more than any other view that is disliked by someone entirely because their belief differs. Basically, saying all blacks or whites are inferior is no different than saying all country music is inferior. Additionally, it would be phony to allow freedom of expression and then turn around and limit what can be freely expressed Consequently. to be totally free, it is necessary to allow any expression, however immoral or degrading it may seem.
Also, the unpopularity of hate speech is insignificant to its protection, Imagine in today's society someone imparts an uncommon, yet true, idea similar to the fact that the Earth is round. If the freedom of expression is restricted based on the content's popularity, this idea's importance would never be comprehended and its use would be lost. Giving relevance to popularity forces conformity and can have grand negative repercussions.
One might oppose that in the above example, the person's idea was true but that most opinions expressed in hate speech can be proven incorrect, and for that justification. Hate speech should be prohibited the problem here is that not all ideas or opinions can be proven true originally, within a sufficient amount of time. Or sometimes even at all, For example, when the idea first came about that the sun was the center of the universe (or correspondingly that the Earth was not the center) very insufficient proof was available if even considered fact. Thus, the measure of truth in opinion cannot be a means of deciding if it is allowed. Also, this goes further to mean that the untruths in hate speech are irrelevant to its protection.
Finally, it can also be said that the freedom to hold any opinion is ridiculous without the accompanying freedom to express it without restriction.
Absolutely right ,,hate speech always leads to the sadness and loneliness at the end ..One might oppose that in the above example, the person's idea was true but that most opinions expressed in hate speech can be proven incorrect, and for that justification. Hate speech should be prohibited the problem here is that not all ideas or opinions can be proven true originally, within a sufficient amount of time. Or sometimes even at all, For example, when the idea first came about that the sun was the center of the universe (or correspondingly that the Earth was not the center) very insufficient proof was available if even considered fact. Thus, the measure of truth in opinion cannot be a means of deciding if it is allowed. Also, this goes further to mean that the untruths in hate speech are irrelevant to its protection