But yes you can! Think that Pakistanis are centipedes in disguise? Fine! Just don't print pamphlets that say that and throw them outside the entrance of the home of a Pakistani family.

Now, I am not saying that this is not a complex task of interpretation. Or that judges always get it right. However, if you find a Muslim outside your house throwing pamphlets that say "all infidels must be killed!" then I assure you that you can call the police and they will arrest that individual inciting hatred. The same law works the same way in all instances. Which is why I took offense to how it was originally presented, that you can somehow be imprisoned for saying that Allah is gay, but it is somehow fine to say that Jesus is gay. You are concentrating on the wrong thing. She is free to believe any crap she wants. It became hate speech when she started throwing ****ing pamphlets around a Muslim neighborhood. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Freedom of speech is not freedom of conscience. In western liberal states freedom of speech comes with certain restrictions which is where the concept of hate speech comes in. It's the same thing as when we speak of 'freedom', which still does not mean you can go and freely kill another person. Freedom comes with inherent limitations.

Anyhow, I think you get where I am coming from by now and I understand where you're coming from as well. I'll try to articulate my thoughts better in future discussions but this is the best I can do for now. 

Did I say trump lied or told truth?

No, I said the left lies just as much as the right. Trump came out and said some huge number which was wrong, the media came out and showed pics of it deserted, which was wrong. Both sides LIED. That is my point. All you are constantly doing is trying to prove that only conservatives are evil.

"why should a hatred inciting book should be subjected to tougher rules than other hatred inciting books (religious ones)?"

Good that you asked. I was actually already writing this when you responded:

This question pertains to the historiographic context, evaluation, and interpretation of the issue of religion and its conflict vis-a-vis hate speech. By nature religions are ancient forms of ideology:

Specifically, any contemporary viewpoint emerging that stated that "All Pakistanis are centipedes"* would be outlawed. It would not be permitted to form and become an actual religion, as its premise would conflict with present laws. In terms of historiographic context, there wouldn't be any, as it would be a new movement. Rather than a 'religion', it would be classified as a form of political activism, formed around the practice and incitement of hatred and racism. It wouldn't fly.

Religions, on the other hand, are an entirely different thing. To begin with, they are ancient. They cannot be held up to scrutiny and moral interpretation from a contemporary context (and perspective). They are worldviews that emerged during very different times, when humanity had different contexts for interpreting morality, violence, jurisprudence. Societies of the time lacked the very concepts of discrimination, freedom of conscience, and all other developments of the Enlightenment. Even if stupid, religion is usually seen as a moral guide where people can interpret the word of God and attempt to inform a moral framework that will guide their actions. Liberal states tolerate the presence of religion on the grounds of individual freedom and aforementioned rights of speech. To retroactively interpret them as racist, hateful, and the sort would be an anachronism and missing the point of religion as interpreted philosophy.

Let us see an example in practice:

I have two quotations here, one from Bible, the other from the Quran. I am not going to reveal which is which.

"Whoso fighteth in the way of God, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward".

"Make ready to slaughter the infidels' sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth and fill the face of the world with their cities".

Aside from the obvious debate over the fact that an adherent of a religion can interpret these passages in non-violent ways, to accomodate moral evolutions in the 1500+ years since these worldviews emerged: In the contemporary context, both passages could/would be seen as inciting hatred and violence. Yet we do not bestow upon the entire religion, or their adherents, the accusation that they are themselves inciting hatred and violence. The moment these passages cease to be merely a matter of freedom of religion, and are transformed into actual excitations of violence, that's when we proceed to try and imprison those particular individuals. In doing so, we cannot and do not hold the entire religion as accountable.

In other words: are you throwing pamphlets inciting hatred? You should be banned from entry, or if you are British you should be fined and imprisoned accordingly to the severity of your actions. Are you in a protest against Danish cartoons and inciting hatred? You should be banned from entry, or if you are British you should be fined and imprisoned accordingly to the severity of your actions. 

I am only saying that the law should have the same face. 

* To any Pakistani person, I hope you read this with the sarcasm intended, and not take any offense in this joke which actually caricatures those who are ridiculously biased or racist to others.

My concern was, and is, that it was implied that things in UK have become so bad that one can say that Jesus is gay with no repercussion, but one is jailed for saying that Allah is gay. I pointed to you the relevant legal passage and why the issue is not with the freedom to call the divines gay, but actually the underlying incitement of hatred that this woman practiced. I then proceeded to show you that the law in UK treats both groups in the same way, and does not in any way favour Muslims or disproportionally protect them from other groups. 

The question over whether we (should) subject religion itself to this kind of scrutiny is a well-open debate. But opening this can of worms would actually damage freedom of speech and conscience. The moment you decide that a religion can itself be inciting hatred, there is nothing stopping others from making the same case for just about any religion or ideology in the world. There is no end-state in this case, and certainly not an end-state that the liberal democratic framework can accommodate. Now, if you lived in Nazi Germany, it would be easy to vilify an entire religion. And guess what, it happened!

A Washington post reporter tweeted a picture of an empty arena and later had to apologize to Trump about it.

You can post all you want about other media correctly posted the size, that is not the point. The point is that some media did report it wrong, just as Trump did.

I don't think you know what whataboutism means.

I'm constantly replying or talking about things you are bringing up. You claim all the media reported only the truth, but his tweet was retweeted, shared and found to be wrong and he had to delete it. He IS the media. A journalist for a national news program tweeting something is "NEWS" 

Tweeting has become News these days. When you tweet, you represent your company also. Do you not notice how often people get fired or reprimanded for a tweet. That is more important for a reporter/journalist. Whether it's "OFFICIAL" or not, it looks as such when a reporter tweets something out.

Also the media is not stupid. They don't care if the info is unverified or likely untrue. They will post a quick article or tweet it out, which results in everyone hearing this. LATER when they redact it, apologize, say they were wrong ect. NO ONE hears that compared to the original story. The story when first published is on front page, headline, or it gets retweeted 100k times. The correction happens when the story is no longer on the front page and one has to search for it, or gets barely any retweets.

They know this. Thus why you see it a lot with Trump. They publish a story or tweet something out that hurts his image, and even if it ends up being untrue, they don't care. The majority of people will only remember the untrue story and never hear the real one.

Hell look at Tom Brady and the deflategate. Look how many people still believe he cheated. Even though ESPN and all outlets came out months later saying they were wrong. The independent study done that they used showing he deflated his balls showed that the colts balls were also deflated the exact same. Science shows the balls deflated how much they should have. The courts rules that Tom Brady was innocent. Ect.

But probably 90% of people think he is guilty and no amount of future evidence will change their mind. They want him to be guilty and thus will believe the info they like to hear. Same for politics. All the people who hate Trump will believe anything bad about him and even if you find out later it is untrue, that will still subconsciously be stuck in your mind as another +1 bad thing Trump did. So then when another thing happens, you're like OMG Trump sucks. While he may have only done 10 bad things, in your mind it is near 100 because each false bad thing he has done you still slightly believe or believe that even though not true, he would have done something like that.

There are three estimates linked in the Wikipedia article I provided and these are the sources I'm aware of, K? Now by contrast, you instead say that you know of "multiple experts and analysts' with different estimates, but don't bother to cite any. I wonder why that is.

In the choice between believing the estimate range highlighted by the sources I'm aware of and taking your word for it as some random stranger I just met on the Internet, I'm going with the former option.

Don't people find it ridiculous, not to say intellectually diminishing, to accuse one another of being 'leftists' 'right-wing' and of 'whataboutisms'? Is this the kind of mental and intellectual discussion politics deserves?

This is hooliganism, not politics. You are not driven by rationality, but by pure emotion. Most of you do not even understand the underlying ideology behind your beliefs.