I guess it just comes down to the lesser of two evils.
1. Who decides what is hate speech?
2. In 1800, would describing all slaveowners as "immoral, godless abominations" and calling for the destruction of their property and livelihoods have been hate speech? If not, why?
In the context of a country, a judge or the people elected to represent the people do. This is often touted as some kind of immense showstopper to restricting speech, when really, it's not. The same people who decide what rights you have also decide what things you can say in public.
>In 1800, would describing all slaveowners as "immoral, godless abominations" and calling for the destruction of their property and livelihoods have been hate speech?
Perhaps, I don't know the law of the time. Were there hate speech laws at the time? If so, then it probably qualified as hate speech, if those laws included such statements.
Restricting speech is not necessarily a slippery slope (though it has potential to be one); the old argument of "who decides what is hate speech?" is a tired one with a relatively simple answer.
Speech is not violence or actions. They should not be conflated. Incitement of violence should be treated as such.
"Hate" speech can never be well defined. I can hate things. I can hate ideas. And the when I speak about them, you can tar me with hate speech to shut me down.
This is antithetical to a free society, the foundation of what the United States was built upon, and generally the modern "western" philosophy.
People should be free to speak their mind. If others disagree, or find what they're saying offensive, then they can choose to not associate with these people.
Honestly this would make a great movie - a society where being mean is outlawed.
You're making this into a slippery slope when it need not be. The parent commenter didn't say anything about mean things, they were talking about hate speech.
Examples off the top of my head: the demonization of "illegal" when in reference to people who cross the border without the right to do so.
The willful conflation of "Muslim" as a race rather than a religion.
Going to point out that your language is ambiguous. What does "being racist" actually mean in the context of what you think should be disallowed?
It's an important question, because odds are very good that if you think through a real example of what you think ought to be criminal, there's a good chance there's already some other law that's already being broken, such as harassment. Of course, one consequence of this is that the censorious types have been diluting the term "harassment" to mean "anything anyone says that makes me feel uncomfortable." (Twitter is rife with this ridiculousness). But I digress. The fact is, harassment laws exist to protect people against the abuse of speech in public places, and there's no need for any particular special groups to have protection.
Here's some sample language:
He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
The greater evil in this case is using the state's monopoly on violence to enforce what should be a norm of civil society.
The problem of racism "on the street" (and most other places, really) is almost always more subtle than blatant hate speech.
Besides violating free speech, hate speech laws don't help with the cultural root causes of racism.