The United States is unique among democracies in believing that the right to free speech is more important than the right to not be offended. If the hate speech can be proven to be connected to efforts to act, then limitations can be imposed, but that's because an actual harm is occuring, not because someone is being offended by the speech.
This a problematic and not necessarily popular conclusion.
Here's a definition of hate speech from uslegal.com:
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
More on hate speech below:
- From the ABA: Debating Hate Speech.
- UK Law School: Regulation of Fighting Words and Hate Speech.
- The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes.
