My perspective is simple: If hate speech is not protected, then any speech that presents any group or individual in a bad light has the risk of being subject to legislation or punishment. If a group that has ever been subject to persecution takes power, that could easily mean you can't criticize your own government. The line between hate speech and ordinary criticism is often very difficult to draw, as evidenced by the tendency of Israel to try and cast any criticism of its policies as "anti-semitism". Because we tend to want to err on the side of caution, any difficulty in drawing clear lines is usually going to mean we don't draw a line at all. We just consider the two things to be identical. So, by association, the entire spectrum of free speech is threatened, whenever a group is allowed to cry "racism" to shut someone up. What guarantees do we have that they will always be shutting them up for the right reason? So, does this danger outweigh the opposite danger, that racists will abuse their freedom of speech in ways that are detrimental to the health and welfare of ethnic minorities? I think there's enough subjectivity for a good debate. Does anyone want to take it up?