It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.
If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness, slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.
Let's see what Wikipedia said about hate speech:
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics."
Is this something clearly defined? Well, I think according to the above definition with a little creativeness I can try to sue almost anybody for almost anything. If it would be defined as "incitement to murder" that's a clear thing, that's fine. I have no issue with the first part of this "definition". Problems starting here: "or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group".