@antonshreve:disqus My argument is pretty simple. This article condones violence against
the man because he believes in white nationalism. In condoning violence against him and his creed then even suggesting forms of violence be enacted upon the man, this article falls under hate speech. That's it. This includes your…

All I see are opinions in all of your arguments. You also keep arguing what you want to argue, not what was presented to you. When you can explain to me how that opening paragraph does not express support for punching him in the face, maybe I'll reconsider. Until then you're just blowing smoke. All it takes is support…

Your reading comprehension needs work.

Your reading comprehension needs work.

And yes my definition of creed applies especially 1.2 in the Oxford:

And there was nothing wrong with my definition. It was basically the same as the one you put fourth, you're just being petty. Plenty studies have found Wikipedia to be a very accurate source of information even though it's not regulated and almost anyone can make a change. It's not quotable for a college paper, but…

You're flat wrong. This article opens up with:

Creed

His "creed" would be best described as being a spokesman for white individual's rights; specifically he is guided by a political creed that openly favors whites. As long as he does not directly argue for others to be harmed, his right to speech is a constitutionally protected right, even if we don't like what he's…

"Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender." - Wikipedia

I'm not a fan of white supremacist / Nazis but this article technically falls under hate speech…just saying…