I'd say that hate speech being banned is not an issue.
Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial.
Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
Now, saying something like "Disabled people are the scum of the earth and should be eradicated" would probably fall under hate speech laws in some jusidictions.
Note the qualitative difference of the statements.
Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech".
QED
Saying "I hate the left" is not hate speech, as politics is meant to affect you — it is meant to affect the whole world, after all.
Saying "I hate muslims" is hate speech: practicing Islam is not meant to affect you. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it however: a discussion is not a verbal attack. You can even say "I hate the Jehovah's witnesses that knock on my door", as the group you are referring to directly affects you.
I won't disclose my personal views, but this is usually what people mean when they say that they hate Muslims, at least according to my experience after talking to them and trying to understand where the problem is. I am yet to see a single person who claims to hate nonpractising moderate Muslims who openly condemn everything listed above – but not only on words, while secretly admiring, liking or even having nothing against any parts of it.
Although your real argument here is not about hate speech; it relates to proselytism, which definitely requires a legal framework.
No, it's not.
Edit: Big surprise that this got a quick downvote with no comment. Really helpful feedback.
Either cite some law supporting the statement in question, preferably one that distinguishes the actual 'line' not to be crossed, or recognize that saying you hate $GROUP is not the same as hate speech, at least in any sane place.
What's next? If I proclaim that I hate dogs, is that hate speech AND animal cruelty?
FWIW I love dogs, and my original short comment was a comment about free speech and sane limits on it. If you think it was a dig at Muslims, or that they're even relevant to the point, your reading comprehension sucks. I don't care what religion you are, it's none of my business as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect anyone else. I also haven't bought into the 'Muslim bogey-man' narrative, if that affects your interpretation.
Whoa, that's already extremely arguable.
<jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem, and saying I _think_ that <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem.
The same goes for insulting police officers. You can report your state of mind, but you can't use a descriptive tense, you need to explicitly state that it is your opinion.
I haven't ever been in trouble of this sort of thing, and I also think that almost every human knows when real hate-speech is being bandied about. But I do know that a few years back the courts in the Netherlands ruled that if you tell a police officer: 'you're a fag' you can't defend yourself by saying it was just an opinion.
That is far more worrisome then me then the supposed reincarnation of Hitler in orange form.
Christ, if Hitler isn't the new devil, capable of possessing people at random and these aren't the new Salem witch trials, I don't know what is.