And as far as your "elucidating a definition", here was the definition you gave originally "Hate speech is pretty easily classified by HATE against other groups of PEOPLE".
Do you also define a farmer as "someone who farms"? In either case, the definition isn't too helpful.
If you are defining hate speech as "inciting to violence" that is one thing. But that ISN'T the definition of hate speech You seem to weave in and out of the real definition. If I say "I hate Catholics and don't think they should be allowed in politics", that is defined as "hate speech" but is allowed in the United States. If I say "I hate Catholics and they should die", then that is inciting to violence and is NOT allowed in the United States
You then say it is very easy to define hate speech when you fail to do so yourself. And, frankly, even intelligent folks have a hard time doing so. There was a European case against a pastor who preached on homosexuality. One court found he violated hate speech laws. Another found the opposite. Who is right? Despite your earlier claims, it is often in the eye of the beholder.
And what groups are protected? Since you claim to be an expert (despite contradicting yourself and failing to define the term when claiming to do so), you would know that generally consensus is around race and religion. Sexual orientation sometimes. Political ideology sometimes. In some countries expressing hatred toward the government is also prohibited. Which definition is right? Does there have to be an incitement to violence? Who defines what constitutes incitement?
So sorry, you can throw out insults all day like you do in the majority of your posts, but that doesn't make you arguments any more valid.