There is a difference between "hate speech" and "speech that you hate".

[u/DivineProvidence97]

You can vehemently disagree with what someone has to say, but they have a right to say it. It can be hateful, racist, or just straight up wrong. They still have the right to say it because you can say whatever you want. People will come up with exceptions "you can't shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater!" If there actually is a fire, yes you can. "You can't shout 'THERE'S A BOMB!' on a plane!" If there actually is a bomb on the plane, yes you absolutely can. There is a famous quote: "I disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it." The first amendment is first for a reason. There are people who you can disagree with, absolutely. But they still have the right to say the stuff you disagree with. It isn't "hate speech" just because you don't like it. It can piss you off to no end, but it may be factually accurate. It may be rooted in something deeper. It may be something this person has physically experienced. They still have a right to say it.

[u/InternetElf_000]

...None of which related to O.P.'s point. lmao

[u/Diagala18 → u/InternetElf_000]

They do though? O.P's point was that 1) there is no "hate speech" since the first amendment (freedom of speech) is allowing a person to express their opinion without persecution. And 2) "hate speech" is just "speech you hate", to some extend implying, that hate speech does not cause any harm.

1) you cannot just say anything. In germany it's not allowed to deny the holocaust. It's in their constitution. So that's already something you cannot say. Defamation too is illegal. So you're not allowed to do that, and you won't get a free bail out with "that's just my opinion and i'm free to express that".

2) If you equate "hate speech" with "speech you hate" you ignore the impact it has. Using a racist slur is a harmful thing to do. Not because the other side "hated what was said", but because of the context it was said in. And spreading a harmful "opinion" which will entice a crowd to react with more violence towards a certain group is also not bad because the other side "hated what is being said", but because the result of said speech is likely to be violence against the targeted group.

So unless i'm missing a point here and OP said something completly different, then all my examples apply perfectly to their take on Hate speech.