According to Webster’s dictionary hate speech is; speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people. Also, according to Webster’s dictionary hate means;

a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b: extreme dislike or disgust : ANTIPATHY, LOATHING
had a great hate of hard work
c: a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred
a crime motivated by bigotry and hate
—often used before another noun
hate mail
an organization tracking hate groups
— see also HATE CRIME
2: an object of hatred
a generation whose finest hate had been big business
— F. L. Paxson
hate verb
hated; hating
Definition of hate (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

1: to feel extreme enmity toward : to regard with active hostility
hates his country’s enemies
2: to have a strong aversion to : find very distasteful
hated to have to meet strangers
hate hypocrisy
intransitive verb

: to express or feel extreme enmity or active hostility
harsh faces and hating eyes

Now, if you will, please read how Noah Webster defined hate himself in his 1828 dictionary, and remember, Webster was a devout Christian;
HATE, verb transitive [Latin odi, for hodi.]

1. To dislike greatly; to have a great aversion to. It expresses less than abhor, detest, and abominate, unless pronounced with a peculiar emphasis.

How long will fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 1:22.

Blessed are ye when men shall hate you. Luke 6:22.

The Roman tyrant was contented to be hated, if he was but feared.

2. In Scripture, it signifies to love less.

If any man come to me, and hate not father and mother, etc. Luke 14:26.

He that spareth the rod, hateth his son. Proverbs 13:24.

HATE, noun Great dislike or aversion; hatred.

Notice, the current meaning assumes that usually hatred comes from fear, anger, or sense of injury.  The word, “usually” does make it technically correct, but can you think of an instance where it is good to hate?  The modern secular world knows what is good to hate, and what is not good to hate, but they have reversed them.  As Christians, we should hate sin in our lives.  We should hate sin as a rule.  We should hate what God hates.  Since God is the ultimate good, we can trust that what He hates is in fact hate worthy.  The world around us on the other hand, hates what God loves.  In fact, they hate the one true God.  They make up for themselves idols to call god.  They lavish their love on those idols.  They love what is detestable to the Lord.

In a society with a bi-polar view of what is good, virtuous, and honorable, where one extreme looks upon the things of God in truth, and acknowledges those things, and the other extreme looks on those things believing the lies of their master, views them as evil, malicious, and hateful, as well as a plethora of people ranging the gamut between the two, it results in a disparate malfunctioning society.

Speech is simply speech.  It is the speaker who harbors hatred, or love in their heart.  Does the speaker hate what God hates?  Does the speaker hate what the godless hate?  This is the true question that should be asked.  Instead, we assume that speech can in and of itself be hateful.  If that be true, then speech is an entity with volition of thought.  If a man reasons with a debased, darkened mind, he might believe such a thing.  However, even a man with a debased, darkened mind, as a rule, and a majority, at this point in time, can see that this is fallacious.

If speech be speech, and hatred not necessarily evil, then why must such a seemingly subjective thing like speech be deemed hateful?  We do not know the condition of the speaker’s heart, nor do we know his intellectual intentions towards the objects of his speech.  The assumption that all speech that elicits negative emotions from the varied masses in audience is hateful, negates the obvious facts of ignorance to the subjects intentions thereof.

Since this is true, wouldn’t it be better to allow the subject, himself, to enlighten the audience in regards to his intentions, and motives, if there be a question?  Also, there is no material damage in relation to the subjects speech, unless it instructs such damage, by direct expunction carried out by the objects.  This is mitigated by the volitions of the objects assuming their faculties are about them, and that they are not otherwise given to some delirium induced by injury, or chemical.

Each agent is acting upon his own volition, informed by his own personal philosophy, through which he interprets the world around him.  If that philosophy finds its source in anything other than what is objectively true, it by definition contains lies.  This is why the God instructs us to build our house on the solid rock.  That rock being Jesus, the way the TRUTH, and the life.  To do otherwise is to found your house on that which is shifting always, the subjective cumulative consciences of lost agents of satan, whether they know it and intend it, or not.

I adjure you all, do not assume this notion of hate speech, or hate crimes for that matter.  Build your life on what is true.  God is true.  He cannot lie.  His word is true.  Jesus is the word made flesh.  I’m sure Webster would have concurred.   We must all repent of our sins, even those sins that at once we assumed were virtues, but in light of the truth see them as betrayals of our Creator.  He is the law giver, and the judge.  We are not.  His word is objective truth.  We must repent of our perversions of truth, and trust alone in the work of Christ Jesus for our justification to the righteous law giver, and judge.

I think Mr. Noah Webster would be horrified to see how the dictionary of his namesake has been corrupted by the enemy of truth.