[gravy]

There's no need to assume that anyone that questions it hasn't had experiences regarding it. Just the fact that there exists in your response any implication that a lack of experience may change someone's definition of "hate speech" makes it amorphous. There may be a definition, but it being "clear" is questionable. Obviously the answer is to leave it to the courts, but then you have to consider the definitions of "attack" or "intimidate" or "discomfort" and if any amount of these is "violence" and to what extent is it punishable.

So I still don't think it's "clear".

[snackbugs]

In order to make your points, you keep skating over the first principle: there is a clear definition.