Isnt hate speech already not allowed in government? Redundant, no?

"Hate Speach" is always in the eye of the beholder. That way Dems can decide what is and what is not "hate speach."

The reason they did it is because they refused to address Rep. Ihlan Omar's (sp?) blatant anti-Semitism. Ignoring her, due to the DNC's disregard for Israel and the Jewish Democrat voting block, they decided to make a stand against the First Amendment of the Constitution.

We have similar shit going on in Canada. It's one of the first steps towards the Islamization of a country - energizing the race card - and inept politicians fall for it thinking that some sort of appeasement will satisfy the Islamic crowd - wrong! Most of Europe is well on their way to being conquered by appeasement and North America is next on the list.

It's a virtue signal. Plain and Simple..
"Look how good we are!!! We propose we put an end hate speech!!"

If we ask them define hate speech..
"nothing see here.. nothing see"

#1. They know it’s a bunch of noise actually signifying nothing.
#2. Since they don’t plan on doing anything useful, it makes it seem like they’re doing ... something.
#3. They don’t want to “Trigger” their 3 newest junior congresswomen by telling them to; “PLEASE, for ... uhhhh ... Our Sake, SHUT UP!!!”
#4. IF they can manage to get the concept of “Hate Speech” legitimized, they can maybe start to Actually undermine the 1st Amendment.

"non-binding". it's not really in conflict. no one is going to jail if they say something against the resolution.

A slippery slope it is, however the First Amendment is a codified Limitation of the Government, so it would technically be a form of tyranny to allow a Government Representative express a hostility towards any group of Citizens.

If you notice what speech laws are doing in other parts of the world, you're in denial that if you think they won't implement it here. I am also an independent, but see the Dems are full court press control over US Citizens. A non binding is just a toe in the water to later legislation. If the sheep eat the feed, they will give larger amounts that are binding the next go round.

I see this as a first step toward criminalizing of criticism of Islam, because they didn't really provide any censure of the clearly racist, antisemitic remarks she made, and they let her help to write the resolution and include the word Islamaphobia in it. You see what they did? She made those remarks very publicly, I believe anticipating all of what ensued, then on their way to policing themselves, (When has the democratic party EVER policed itself for anything?!) they flipped it all making the offending muslim the victim.

Agreed. As a former prosecutor, I feel very strongly that there should be no hate speech laws. It is such a vague term. These days just disagreeing with the leftist is deemed hate. This is very dangerous and is just a way to silence people

Non-binding means it is meaningless. If you read the document, it actually does not even do anything to address hateful speech.
Freedom of expression means we protect the speech we disagree with. You are correct that it should not controlled.
For a nation to thrive, it must me a moral one, but this must be by individual choice. Forced morality is no morality at all.

The more laws they have, the more they can pick and choose who to prosecute with those laws. Does anybody really think they'll apply that law to both parties equally?

Trump: Immigrants must come here legally
Democrats: That's hate speech! Impeach him!

Ilhan Omar: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." (a direct quote from her Twitter account)
Democrats: She doesn't know what she's saying!

Edit - I know this is a very partisan post. What can I say? Sometimes I'm feeling partisan. I'm not exactly a die-hard Reublican, either - I'm very critical of some of their politicians and policies. But sometimes I get sick of the hypocrisy.

I think the Democrat politicians would use the excuse that the First Amendment only applies to the government not restricting the citizen's rights to free speech, which of course would be a weak argument, but that's modern day Democrats for you though...