Words are not the only form of speech, and physical violence is not the only way to cause harm. This is a "No True Scotsman", since hate speech is limited to neither.
You’re talking about hate speech as if it were a universally agreed upon concept. Hate speech is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Any speech I consider to be hateful is hate speech, any speech you consider to be hateful is hate speech, and there are 7.5 billion other unique sets of criteria out there for defining hate speech that are no more or no less valid.
If you want to get into a semantics argument on the definition of hate speech, then here's Wikipedia's definition:
>Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Wikipedia’s definition is no better. Even if you accept this definition, now you’re faced with the impossible task of defining what constitutes an attack on those grounds. The issue of defining hate speech is at the core of the free speech concerns, because what constitutes hate speech, by necessity, comes down entirely to the whims and personal opinions of whoever is enforcing the censorship.
Ah, but Wikipedia covers that in the very next sentence:
>The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a protected group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group.
Great. Except nobody is using that definition when talking about policing online speech. In fact those categories of speech have never been protected. It’s never been legal to solicit violence or to harass people. None of the big tech firms that have engaged in this type of censorship have done so solely on the basis of policing non-protected speech, so it’s entirely dishonest to say that hate speech starts and ends with with legal statutes.
It has two paragraphs describing that large tech companies review hate speech deemed illegal by the EU. That is not a description of how those companies interpret hate speech at all, and doesn’t come close describing their hate speech policies, which as I said, do not start and end with statutes.
Words are not the only form of speech, and physical violence is not the only way to cause harm. This is a "No True Scotsman", since hate speech is limited to neither.