Hate speech law is well-intentioned but ineffective in addressing the real problems of hate speech because rely on a statutory definition of hate speech which is either vague and difficult to enforce, or is too restrictive and renders much hate speech immune from regulation.
Hate speech law is justified insofar as speech is capable of causing harms, and specifically the harm of inhibiting its victims' ability to speak, and moreover inhibiting them from developing and exercising their individual capabilities.
Hate speech law is justified in the same way that many other forms of speech (i.e. Defamation, obscenity, incitement to commit a criminal act, etc.) are justified, insofar as it can be demonstrated that it is harmful.
Hate speech law is extremely difficult to litigate owing to the fact that hate speech is a public act whereas the resolution process is not a broad public initiation in kind, but rather, an overwhelmingly private matter... an apology or agreement between two individuals in a closed setting.
Hate speech law is well-intentioned but ineffective in addressing the real problems of hate speech because they pit the largely incompatible goals of free speech on the one hand, and the ameliorating of the harms of hate speech on the other.
Hate speech law is well-intentioned but wrongheaded — they invoke a private and individualized resolution process for what is essentially a public problem.