But that reduces the term to be meaningless. Unless you attempt to draw a line between what is and isn't hate, you cannot address it by law or even in discours

But that reduces the term to be meaningless. Unless you attempt to draw a line between what is and isn't hate, you cannot address it by law or even in discourse. If we want less of it, first we must define it. Only then can we draw a line so we can say, "Free speech stops here. Beyond this, the cost is too high (and the benefit too small)." The courts have drawn lines in the past when it comes to speech inviting bodily harm. Weaponized speech intended only to injure is little different.