I saw a flyer for a talk about this on a college campus. I am thinking of hate speech as specific names that are intended to harm.
Initially, there has to be a motivation for making hate speech. So, the existence of A motivates hate in B.
B therefore tries to satisfy their hatred by harming A (by calling them a name)
A retaliates by trying to harm B (through some sort of punishment for hate speech)
B objects to A retaliating (appealing to freedom of speech)
A objects to B objecting to A retaliating
B objects to A objecting to B Objecting to A retaliating
So it seems like there really isn't a debate but instead some sort of struggle for something impossible, which would be to harm another person without them retaliating. Each side thinks their harm is a form of justice and therefore any retaliation would be disturbing the just order and would therefore require another harm, and this would go on forever. What would be the solution here?