That 'hate speech' is not legal (or illegal) everywhere, in itself goes to show how poor the law is in reflecting the moral perspective. If law had anything to

That 'hate speech' is not legal (or illegal) everywhere, in itself goes to show how poor the law is in reflecting the moral perspective. If law had anything to do with right or wrong, it would be the same everywhere, and would have been so from the beginning. Right and wrong haven't changed. The real question imo is: Is hate speech immoral? The answer, imo, is no in most cases. If you are not harming another, there is nothing 'bad' occurring. (There will be exceptions to this.) Just like you ought to be free to indulge your vices (and you are free to choose to harm yourself if you like), you should also be able to say what you like. Words might be unpleasant, but they are not actually harmful. If there are physical consequences to your behaviour, it is the consequences that are 'bad'. Eg, if you insult some group, and someone hears you and consequently physically harms someone in that group, the immoral act that has occurred is the violence that was inflicted, nor the initial words. It's really pretty simple. But no, the law does not (and cannot) reflect the moral reasoning.