The 1st amendment only referres to the fact that the Government cannot surpress free speech (and even so, there are restrictions, like libel and child pornography; hate speech is an exception is most places). A private organization can still fire someone if they behave against their policy.

and none of those things cover what happens at universities. also what you consider hate speech, is not considered hate speech here (thank God) because hate speech to you, is anyone with a different view than you.

also, private institutions can fire people that go against their policies, but their policies still must be within the law, meaning complying with the 1st amendment.

not to mention, most universities are public

It's not really such a small number of cases given that FIRE is only about a decade old and isn't nearly as large or well established as the ACLU, which handles exponentially more such cases. But FIRE is an easy place to look for this kind of stuff because unlike other free speech organizations, they deal exclusively with academia.

You seem to have a very narrow and glorified view of how political correctness works, I think. We are not talking about the choice of private individuals refusing to associate with people who offend them, which I don't think anyone in the world could disagree with. We're talking about institutions of learning which receive taxpayer dollars telling people they can't say or do offensive things while permitting other people to say and do offensive things, simply because they happen to agree with those particular offensive things. I mean, I get that your view of this issue is strongly colored by where you live, and probably if I lived in an intolerant backwater, I'd feel the same way as you, but I don't, so I don't.

Not really. Unless you're saying that an employee can say anything, including verbally harass clients, and an employer has to accept it as the employee exercising his first amendment right. As I said, the first amendment only referres to the Government not being able to censure speech (and I'm quite sure libel is illegal in your country too, at least I hope it is).

Your definition of hate speech just shows that you're well aware that your views are hateful.

I thought that the cases from the link you provided were the only ones.

Regarding your second paragraph, hate speech is defined denigrating speech that may incite violence or prejudice against a minority group (or a group that is not dominant within society, and is thus a possible victim of persecution). In most civlized countries such hate speech is illegal, and since universities do recieve public funding, it's actually quite appropriate that they respect the law. Now the problem is that many people extend the definition of hate speech way too much, thus making the whole concept and the laws regarding it (which are terribly necessary) seem like a joke (a lot of the cases presented on that site are good examples).

"Offensive" is really an understatement when referring to hate speech. An example of hate speech would be "black people are evil and primitive. If they get near you they'll rob and rape you. Beware of them!" or "gay people are an abomination. they should be stoned to death". If I were black/gay/both, I'd not really have much time to be offended, because I'd be too busy fearing for my life, 'cause they're essentially instignations to persecution and violence towards me, especially in a country like mine, where lynch mobs aren't unheard of. Instignations towards violence are generally illegal in most countries, regardless of whom they're aimed at.

your last part makes absolutely no sense. i dont even know how you arrived at that conclusion, other than blinded ideology.

my definition of hate speech, is what courts have constantly ruled as hate speech throughout history. which means your definition, is thankfully not practiced

I sense that we may be talking past one another. I'm not talking about "hate speech", which doesn't exist as a legal concept in the US, but rather the practice of universities arbitrarily deciding that what this student said or did is offensive while what another student said or did is not. When the speech in question doesn't come close to crossing any legal lines - into libel, obscenity (which I think is a bullshit concept on par with hate speech, but that's a whole different argument in itself), or fighting words - it amounts to nothing more than someone who is in a position of power having had their own personal sensibilities offended and using their power to shut down people with whom they disagree. That's just unacceptable for a public institution, and when universities pride themselves on being places where ideas can be freely exchanged, it is also monumentally hypocritical.

First of all, I'm surprised that hate speech doesn't exist as a legal concept in the US. Second of all, what's the justification for banning the speech you mentioned? "Offensive" shouldn't cut it, unless it's applied indiscriminately to assure harmony within the institution or something. Third of all, hate speech laws are quire necessary to protect minorities from majorities (talked more about it in my previous).

It should be pretty obvious why slander and so-called fighting words (threats, incitement of violence, etc.) are illegal. Obscenity is a pretty vague concept, but it basically boils down to protecting the virgin eyes and ears of children. If it can be successfully argued that something has serious artistic merit (which is seemingly pretty much anything these days), someone can usually beat an obscenity charge, but the very concept almost seems designed to chill speech.

I think the same can be said for hate speech. Even if hate speech laws are drafted with the very best of intentions, they are incredibly susceptible to abuse. Look at Canada's creepily Orwellian Human Rights Commission, before which a columnist named Mark Steyn was hauled to answer for... writing unflattering things about Muslims, basically. The thing to which they took greatest offense turned out to have been some line about how Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes" in European countries, but that was a direct quote from a Norwegian imam, Mullah Krekar. So Steyn skated, but the whole thing sort of puts all Canadians on notice: careful what you say about Muslims. Even perfectly moderate, politically disengaged Canadians are bound to resent the fact that there is essentially a double standard regarding what you can say about, say, the average white Protestant Canadian and what you can say about Muslims. So the very laws that are meant to help bring people together only serve to drive a bigger wedge between them and otherize Canadian Muslims more than all the hate speech in the world ever could.

Obscenity is quite ambiguous these days. Obscenety laws aren't really meant to restrict free speech, as much as they are meant to promote conservative (chirsitan) sexual mores. For example, in Romania 2 decades ago 2 men kissing, or even holding hands in public was considered an "obscenity" and could get the arrested.

As for the second paragraph, you have to understand that hate speech laws aren't designed to "bring people together", they're designed to protect high risk groups, such as minority groups, or groups that have been historically abused by society (like women). White protestants don't qualify, because they're the majority (and also the "ruling class"). Realistically, the only thing that you can do to them is offend them, but since they're the majority they're not likely to experience any persecution/violence from society, because... they make up most of society.

As for the example provided, I'd havre to actually read his article to form a proper opinion, but if my hunch is right, it was probably one of those fear-mongering rhetorics meant to demonize muslims and present them as evil "invaders" (such a rhetoric is quite common amongst European right-wingers). I also have a hunch that ironically, the reporter himself probably misquoted the imam to present "proof". If this is the case, then it's downright hate speech, and should be banned (of course, this is just a hunch, I'd still have to read the actual article).