Already is.

Any religion that looks to spread is going to use "us vs them" hatred and eventually violence to get their message across.

Uh, is this a rhetorical question?

I mean, we have them, and they are. Sooo....

cough conservatism cough

It should be allowed to exist. But we should still condemn actions taken by it's followers that have negative impacts on society

Who would determine which religions are hateful and which aren't? How would this be enforced?

I think anything is fine as long as they’re not hurting anyone. So if their hate is confined to themselves idc.

There is a religion of hate: American Protestant

In order to preserve tolerance, we must be intolerant to the intolerant. Give plaforms to the hateful religion, and the next thing they'll do is to play victim whenever they're being criticized for being intolerant.

Depends on why people call it that, I suppose.

We did just have an interesting experiment in free speech over the last few years, and it’s still not clear where it ends up.

In the US there’s a carveout where online providers are not liable for what their users say, as long as the platform is free and open. However as the current craziness started breaking out, they did start moderating more, preventing at least some false info and at least some calls to endanger public safety. However, are they still not liable, now that they actively participate in what is allowed on their systems? Where should the line be drawn between false and endangering vs free speech, in what people use social media for? When it was just the village idiot spewing hate and violence, we could mostly ignore them, but what about when they have global reach, connect with other village idiots, actually instigate violence?