The actual crime, is not the speech. The crime is incitation to violence.
However, this subtle point is often lost.
Take for instance, if I discuss the origin of the word "nigger." I am not calling anyone a nigger, or implying that anyone is one, or should be held in a state of social contempt for one. The basis of the communication is CLEARLY focused on the etymological origins of the word itself. There is no incitation to violence in this discussion.
However, efforts to stamp out hate speech, will make the use of the word impossible, such as via automatic filters, or automatic dispensation of punative measures, such as mutes or bans. This is censorship, devoid of any legal footing.
For some, ANY MENTION of the word in question is intolerable, even discussing the word itself in a vacuum. The use of the word itself is considered "hate speech", no matter the context.
Incitation to violence is illegal for the same reason that burning crosses, lynch mobs, and vigilantes are illegal. However, banning speech, is absurd. There is a subtle disconnect between an utterance, and its intent. Like for example, my tagline, which is indeed pure irony. (The use of words other than their literal intention.)
Many people would find the following video to be straight up "profanity", for instance, despite the obvious ironical context it presents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSEXgQ58AoMThis is the danger of dogmatism in regard to punative measures for the use of language. It creates whole areas of discussion that are not permitted, because of one particular aspect of communication with those words.
Further, there is the far greater danger: That this is OK.