In a word, because it allows anyone to imprison you for something you say.
How does that work? Think of it this way: any controversial issue is going to have proponents in favor of it and detractors against it. What this amounts to is that the proponents are going to argue that encouraging it will improve the country/world, and detractors are going to argue that encouraging it will worsen the country/world. Let’s focus on the latter. If the promotion of some controversial issue leads to a worse country/world, you can imagine all sorts of harm it would cause–people becoming poorer, more sickness, more corruption, more killing, more abuse–the list goes on–and how bad it becomes can be as extreme as your imagination allows. All it takes from there is to link these horrible outcomes with those who wish to promote the policies you believe will cause such outcomes by accusing them of hate. Those who promote these policies must want these horrible outcomes. Therefore, they must hate the victims of such outcomes.
Some examples:
abortion: if abortions are made more permissible, then more unborn children will die. The death of unborn children is horrible. Therefore, pro-choice advocates must want unborn children to die. They obviously hate the unborn! Therefore, pro-choice speech is hate speech (and they should go to jail). On the other hand, if abortions are curtailed, then more women’s lives will be ruined, especially those who are raped, impregnated too young, or have medical complications that might kill them while delivering. We don’t want women’s lives to be ruined. Therefore, those who wish to prohibit abortions must hate women, and pro-life speech is hate speech (and they should go to jail).
gun control: if you defend the 2nd amendment, then you are advocating for more murders, school shootings, and gun violence. You must hate the victims of such violence. Therefore, 2nd amendment enthusiasts engage in hate speech, and should be arrested. On the other hand, if you speak out against the 2nd amendment, then you are advocating for a weaker populous with no ability to defend themselves against corrupt authoritarian governments. If the government decides to crack down on the masses (say like Tiananmen Square) the people will have no way to defend themselves. Therefore, 2nd amendment detractors must hate those who want to defend their freedom against tyrannical government. They are engaged in hate speech, and should be arrested.
immigration: when you argue for stricter immigration laws, you are taking away opportunities from those who wish only to enter the country to find a better life. Therefore, you must want to ruin their lives. So if you argue for stricter immigration laws, that’s hate speech, which is grounds for prosecuting you. On the other hand, if you argue for looser immigration laws, you are encouraging rapists, murderers, and terrorists to enter the country, which puts potential victims at risk. You must want harm to come to those potential victims. So if you argue for looser immigration laws, that’s hate speech, which is grounds for prosecuting you.
You see the pattern? You see how it can be applied to just about anything, as long as it’s controversial? You see why hate speech laws can be dangerous? All it takes is for someone to come up with a convincing enough argument for why some speech they don’t like counts as hate, and you can bring the law down on them.
To be fair, however, I will point out that I do see the benefit of having hate speech laws. If we can prevent harm being done to potential victims of those who listen to some hate speech and decide to put that speech into actions, society becomes a safer place to live. So my argument about the harms that hate speech laws can cause is not meant to be conclusive, but rather to give a more balanced take on the subject, to add to the cons of a list of pros and cons. Whether the pros still outweigh the cons or visa-versa is another matter. But I don’t believe I’ve ever come across an argument like the one I made above (outlining a specific formula by which any controversial speech can be labeled as “hate”) so I figured I’d post it.
Now, before you dismiss my argument on the grounds that “Oh, Gib, that will never happen. People don’t just label speech they don’t like as ‘hate speech’ and pursue legal action. It only happens when there is reasonable ground to use such a label and a real threat of danger to human life and wellbeing” I will tell you it’s already happening. Here’s just one example (skip ahead to 54:40):
If Coates can label Charlie Kirk’s life’s work as “hate”, anything can be labeled “hate”. And I’ve given the formula by which that can be done above.
