The purpose of my statement was to summarize the preceding poster's hypothetical example into its barest premise. Any particular claim of broadness you gleaned

The purpose of my statement was to summarize the preceding poster's hypothetical example into its barest premise. Any particular claim of broadness you gleaned from my one sentence is for you to prove. As far as your assessment of hate speech is concerned, I read it and was about to compose similar arguments to those of Andy_G11. I have little to add. As far as what I personally think about your premise that certain speech from certain individuals should be classified differently whether in law or in general society, it's bunk. I don't know how you think any such law would functionally work in a world with free press, mass publishing, the Internet, etc. and, even if followed, I don't see how "hate speech" laws won't be abused to silence individuals. If you want to see how laws like this that "work" in practice, look up lèse-majesté.