Hate speech as a legal definition cannot coexist with freedom of speech. I hold freedom of speech as one of my highest principles. We already have just laws against inciting panic and violence. The category of hate speech is irrelevant in the best case, and actively harmful in the worst case.

Most importantly, what should concern all thoughtful people is that it seems to be within the Overton Window to say how much you hate white people because of the color of their skin. Not hate speech, why exactly? Because the entire concept is reactionary nonsense trying to give white people harsher criminal sentences for the same violent crimes as committed by other races. What happens if the table turns again and the standard is unfairly applied in reverse? Hate soeech advocates have already set the precedent that we get to choose which races get favored prosecution treatment for the same crime.

Violence is violence, speech is speech. You can't improve on Martin Luther King, man. Judge individuals based on the content of their character. The list is complete.

Hate speech is a loaded term where the connotations are more powerful than the literal definition. Other examples include racist and sexist.

Do you have a sexual preference? In other words, you immediately discount someone based on qualities they were born with and have no control over. That by definition makes you a sexist, but so what. All discrimination is not wrong, like how employers (attempt to) strongly discriminate based on ability.

Hate speech is in the same bucket. It has a murky, varying meaning depending on who you talk to.

I personally also do not believe in "hate speech". Its an attempt to bait-and-switch language, like calling someone hateful when really you just disagree with them, or maybe theyre just rude. Its begging the question.