It's even stranger than that.
There are a fair few trees here. But most of them aren't natural, they were planted. Planted in perfectly straight, compass-axis lines that run for about a kilometer each, slicing the plain into a giant square checker pattern.
At least in the case of fumos these days they're made-to-order. Buying 10 of them isn't snatching 10 of them from the carts of other potential buyers, it just means 10 more fumos will be made. If anything it's strictly increasing the supply and making them more accessible to people who couldn't make the preorder window.
This was absolutely not the case a few years ago, though. And just because you're technically not scalping doesn't mean you can't still wildly overcharge.
2, 3, 5; 4 not required.
This thread alone is showing me how divisive this question is for a lot of reasons. Just the meta-question of "what's the definition of 'free speech' in this context?" on its own makes it a shitshow to answer, let alone the rest of it.
It says in the name. 'Free', 'speech'. If I can say it, you can't silence it. Anything more restricted is not 'free'.
If that's what it means to you, then no, "hate speech", whatever it may be, is included by definition. There is no ambiguity. But that's a pretty inflexible answer that doesn't satisfy.
Well that's a stupid and useless definition of "free speech". Obviously some things that can be spoken aren't 'free speech', because they aren't constructive, they're not good-faith conversational, they are a form of harm, etc."
Sure. Under that definition, it's totally possible.
But congratulations, by restricting what 'free speech' is in any way whatsoever, you've invented an implicit judge who rules what is and is not free speech. (And, likely as well, rules what is and is not "hate speech".) That only kicks the can down the road to the question of, "Is this a fair judge?" And now we are back in the shitshow where we began, we just painted the walls a new color.
"Free speech" as Americans in particular are so worked up about is a nickname given to one of the amendments of their constitution, which is a clause about disallowing the government from punishing anyone for their speech. Any implication of rights relating to speech outside of this context is a gross misunderstanding.
If that's the definition you're going with, then yes, obviously it's possible, because that's where many of us are at right now and have been at for ages. That makes it a rather nothingburger of an answer because it dodges the implicit question of whether we should uphold "free speech" as a principle outside of this context, whatever that may mean.
The way I see it, the two answers on the extreme ends are cop-outs that don't actually help anyone, and any answer that exists in the middle just becomes politics. Is it possible to allow "free speech" and simultaneously stop "hate speech"? Yes, with adequate definitions of both. Will any solution that does so be satisfactory to a critical mass of people, randomly selected from all people? Haha no.
Red hotdish is tomato-based, white hotdish is "cream of (usually mushroom)"-based.
You would love my Mom's hotdish and revile my aunt's hotdish.
I'll start a few more wars, then.
Red hotdish or white hotdish?
Does corn belong in hotdish?
Do the tots go on the bottom or on the top?
No, that would require a cave, which implies the existence of interesting geological features.
Hey now, we have some resources. Like... uh... hotdish?
Why are you walking away, weren't you invading?
My shortlist, off the top of my head:
.desktop files actually live in, and navigating the poorly-documented format for modifying themI thrive in the pain. But yes, there is plenty of pain.
Gimp is for photo editing.
Krita is for digital painting.
The scenes of Clooney as the President in Spy Kids 3 were allegedly shot by Clooney in a day in his own living room with a camcorder he just had lying around.