Hate speech should be banned

The first point is very true. Not all laws are created by specifying all definitions. However, There are certain reasons some laws are created very vaguely. Certain laws, Like emergency laws, Are often crafted to give an unreasonable amount of power to certain individuals without much checks, Because even the creators of the law cannot imagine all possible forms of emergency, And hence cannot decide how much of power to give. An example of how such laws can be misused is President Trump threatening to declare emergency to procure funds for creating his wall. That said, Most such laws are created expressly because one cannot divine the future. Perhaps similarly, A blanket rule on hate speech gives the executive and the judiciary the flexibility to decide what exactly "hate speech" is, In an evolving society. As time passes, Certain subjects may not be as sensitive anymore, Or certain topics may become too contentious to speak about. Hence, Law creators may find it necessary to leave the exact definition of "hate speech" to the judiciary, To reflect changes in the society. Just to rebut the third point about news groups, If laws are not created to stop the spread of extremist sentiments, Then an extremist group can technically buy a news platform and then be free to spread any message they want. As an (extreme) example, If a well regarded company like the BBC is a publicly traded company (I'm not sure), And extremist factions like ISIS/ISIL buy more than 50% of it through intermediate companies, Then, Do you think it should be legal for extremist sentiments to be broadcast there? Before continuing the debate, I believe it is prudent to define "hate speech", At least as applicable to our debate. Wikipedia (not the best source of information, I know) defines hate speech to be "speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of attributes such as race, Religion, Ethnic origin, National origin, Sex, Disability, Sexual orientation, Or gender identity" and further goes on to state that "The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, Gestures, Conduct, Writing, Or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, Or disparages or intimidates a group, Or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group". The Indian Constitution permits punishment for disrespecting people or communities "on grounds of religion, Race, Place of birth, Residence, Language, Caste or community or any other ground whatsoever". While pretty diverse, The definitions seem to boil down to a legislative guarantee that people would not be (verbally) attacked for being "different" from others. Hence, Stating that hate speech shouldn't be banned seems equivalent to stating that minorities should not be protected from verbal abuse about them being different form others. That said, Many constitutions do not directly group all of "hate speech" into one section. There may be separate laws for ensuring that people are not disrespected with respect to religion or skin colour, That the "differently abled" should not be "bullied", That discrimination (in any form) with respect to sexual orientation is punishable, And so on. This may not be one single law, But still comes together in some form to create a basket of regulations against hate speech. Finally, If one believes that "incitement to violence" can be done only directly by stating "Hit him with a car", One sorely misjudges the power of language. One has to only read some of the well written speeches like Mark Antony's to understand that one can incite a crowd to mass murder without uttering a single command. Similarly, Communal tension due to religion is not often created by religious leaders directly commanding their subjects to exterminate members of the other religion (at least in the modern times). Instead, In India, We see more of slanted comments, Like "they eat pork, A filthy animal that has been declared unclean in the Holy Quran", Or, In case of the recent floods in Kerala, There were statements saying "no wonder they were smited by God, They eat beef" (eating beef is prohibited to Hindus). Such statements may not directly inciting violence (not yet), But if left unchecked, Can cause communal violence which can and have killed thousands of people. At the end of the day, One has the social responsibility to be respectful to others. If this is not guaranteed by laws, Then repeated disgracing of a particular community (religion, Caste, Race, . . . ) due to certain peculiarities will cause an uprising, Which our past has shown can be a very violent situation resulting in a lot of loss of life. Even without such a Sword of Damocles above us, One must question if it is ethical to condone such repeated disparaging of someone. If it is not, Then exactly due to that, I believe hate speech must be restricted in some form or another.