yet, you'd( yes you reading this) would be ok* with muslims/jewslchirsitains being labelled terrorist, Zionist and Crusaders respectively.
A civilized society is not one that degrades and mocks its members
Be civil #Donthatedebate
Freedom of speech by definition includes freedom to hate provided said hate does not incite violence against the targets. Conversely people also have freedom to criticize those who exercise freedom to hate.
Unless they're encouraging violence against individuals/specific groups I don't see a problem.
I think some of Britain's and wider Europe's laws that encroach on what should be free speech are utterly ridiculous.
There is a problem that some people feel they have a right not to be offended. People hate statements that they don't agree with, Shakespeare's plays would be fought to be banned by groups like feminists if they were released tomorrow, Churchill had very traditional views for his time and was the exact sort of 'elite' that people complain about today. Just because one person views it as hate or offensive should never stop someone from saying it. I agree with the law in the since that there are limits, harassment, encouraging violence, revealing certain types of state secrets( e.g.flaws in defence). But am holistically against limits on offence or hate. People should be able to be part of extremist groups as long as they don't commit or incite violence. Without freedom to hate or offend debate of all kinds would be muted