Yeah. Otherwise, who decides? Nobody is qualified to define allowable speech and thinking. Exceptions to any attempt at sets of "allowable speech" rules are trivially produced.
Concepts like hate and lies are vague and nebulous. The best you can do to prevent actual harm in the real world is allow unfettered speech and discussion.
Speech is thinking. Non-consensual thought control is evil. Consensual speech and discussion comprises culture - if you have a problem with what other people think and say, the ethical, moral mechanism to rectify that problem is called conversation.
People are always going to have different ideas than you. Sometimes those ideas will be repugnant to you. It is more repugnant to decide that your own thoughts are the only ones allowed.
You don't get to decide what people think and say. Other people don't get to decide that for you.
Concepts like hate and lies are vague and nebulous. The best you can do to prevent actual harm in the real world is allow unfettered speech and discussion.
Speech is thinking. Non-consensual thought control is evil. Consensual speech and discussion comprises culture - if you have a problem with what other people think and say, the ethical, moral mechanism to rectify that problem is called conversation.
People are always going to have different ideas than you. Sometimes those ideas will be repugnant to you. It is more repugnant to decide that your own thoughts are the only ones allowed.
You don't get to decide what people think and say. Other people don't get to decide that for you.