Final answer:
Some consequentialists support allowing hate speech due to the greater harm they believe censorship can cause, adhering to the harm principle which suggests freedom of expression should only be restricted when it causes direct harm to others.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate around hate speech and censorship underlines the conflict between the defense of free speech and the need to prevent the harmful consequences of hate speech. Some consequentialists, who prioritize the outcomes of actions, argue that despite the harms of hate speech, censoring it would lead to greater harm. They support the idea of allowing hate speech but within the context of regulated freedom of expression where direct incitement to violence or threats are not tolerated. This view aligns with the harm principle advocated by John Stuart Mill, which suggests that the freedom to express should only be limited when it results in direct harm to others. Therefore, following this principle, speech should not be curtailed unless it harms another person through direct incitement of violence or similar measurable harm.
Consequentialist considerations would also include the impact of legal violations, the role of regulations, the necessity of user consent for data use, the distinction between speech and the right to amplification, and the limitations of corporate influence on politics. Each of these areas is relevant to discussions of free speech and hate speech, and the mechanisms by which society attempts to balance individual rights with the prevention of harm. Regulations like Germany's Network Enforcement Act, for example, attempt to address hate speech online while also navigating the complexities of free speech rights.