The UK is in the throes of trying to define what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society. The problem seems to stem from the parameters of 'harm' being defined almost entirely by the victim. There are claims that arguments against certain idiologies "deny the existence" of groups, and further that expressing these idea seems to lead directly to self harm and suicides. So, "speech that causes harm" and makes people feel hated. Bingo: 'hate speech'. But what happens when there isn't any hate or targeted 'detesting' going on? (Or good data on suicides for that matter.) It's open for abuse by a mob. Not a good path to head down in a pluralist, liberal society IMHO.
It's strange to me that at least within nations, the previously war-starting disagreements about the finer details of the Abrahamic religions seem to have chosen different orbits within society, politely nod to each other and know no good will come from trying to lock horns. The kids on Twitter now have apparently equally strongly held beliefs about other stuff but are utterly gob-smacked that other people won't agree with them even though they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.