Okay, if you make hate speech illegal, then you have to come up with a legal definition for hate speech so people can be prosecuted. Once there was a legal definition, people would find loopholes and continue voicing their opinions in ways that weren't technically considered "hate speech" (which doesn't actually hurt anyone, by the way). With loopholes would come additional rules and the broadening of the definition so that people could continue being prosecuted for this "crime". Before you know it, we won't be allowed to criticize people at all because anything that could possibly be considered offensive would be hate speech. Taking away free speech or limiting it with a subjective term like hate speech creates room for more controlling laws and a more controlling government. People should be allowed to say whatever they want, and people should be able to argue their side, no matter what.
Hate speech and hate crimes are illegal in at least my state (Victoria) of Australia. We have had no particular issue with balancing the legalities with civil liberties. Sure, there are still some who moan about how that slipperly slope.. but that is part of the natural checks and balances that keep things from going to any extreme. These laws are managed appropriately and hardly bought out whenever someone says something you don't like. There are clear definitions and the focus is on the public good. It's not in our interest to give a platform to, for example, KKK members advocating Victorians kick out ethnic minorities... so why should they be allowed to come into our community and spread hate?
Other places are welcome to do things differently, that's their business. But I'm glad I live in a community that sets a minimum standard of conduct when in a public forum. We've gotten those date-rape advocates kicked out (as a threat to public safety as the techniques taught are NOT legal here), as well as that American who claims that abortion gives you breast cancer (as that is not medically nor scientifically sound information and she is not qualified to speak on the subject). Sure, people can say whatever they want - and so can I. If some ****wit wants to hold a seminar to teach people to break the law? Yeah, nah. I'm free to say NO. I'm free to protest, sign petitions, write to government representatives and businesses that support that imdividual or group. And they, of course, are all free to ignore me. But if enough people care, and say NO, then the answer is no. Not in our state. Often, not in our country. Visas don't have to be granted for someone intending to do harm to society, and my view they shouldn't be. Most countries routinely screen visa applicants to assess their suitability for entering the country, including those planning to speak publicly or at private events.
We don't have a constitutional right to "freedom of speech" (ie, freedom from being persecuted by the government) here. We do have this effectively guaranteed in other ways, within the boundaries of being part of a civilised society. No one in the US is allowed to walk into a crowded building and yell "fire" unless they have actual reason to believe there is a fire (or another emergency under certain circumstances, if a fire would cause less panic than the truth). No one can outline in detail a wish to kill or injure another person without consequence.
As a society, you've determined that certain speech is not permitted, or only allowed with certain boundaries. Mine has different boundaries, and that's okay. I won't try and suggest that our murder rate, especially gun crimes, are so low only because of our laws against hate speech, as there is a lot more going on to explain that difference.
But it works for us.
