The problem is that when you establish broad exceptions for anything, they tend to get abused. Hate speech is terrible and I hate it myself, but it could be eve

The problem is that when you establish broad exceptions for anything, they tend to get abused. Hate speech is terrible and I hate it myself, but it could be even worse that someone could legally define or interpret someone’s speech as hate speech. How would judges decide these cases? What burden of proof would prosecutors need? We would need extremely narrow guidelines and even then it likely wouldn’t even cone close to being sufficient. There are already plenty of local laws and ordinances against inciting violence and disturbing the peace; the US therefore does not need “hate speech laws”, whatever that really means.