[whiddershins]

This analysis is completely wrong. Defamation has a fairly clear definition, causes specific damages, and is directed at an individual.

Hate speech is almost the definitive slippery slope, the definition changes in real-time and can easily and always expand.

[bonestamp2]

I supposed I should have mentioned how Canada defines illegal hate speech, because that has a clear definition too. The type of hate speech that is illegal there is hate speech that advocates or incites violence or genocide. That's clear and defines how it is damaging, therefore it's not definitively slippery.