Free-speech and Hate-speech ideals are oxymoronic. Punishing perceived hate-speech is contrary to free-speech. Sometimes that is necessary. But who should determine the lines? The government? Hardly. That outcome is as bad as the outcome of a pure democracy. You might notice there are no purely democratic nations because it doesn’t work.
If the government is put in charge of determining what should and should not be censored then society as a whole will be blown hinder and yonder by the political personalities in charge. So, for all you Trump haters, do you really want him determining what should and should not be censored? And would all you Clinton haters want her determining what should and should not be censored? (I was a Gary Johnson supporter, by the way. He looks pretty good about now.)
I don’t have an answer to this one. All I know is that it is always best to err on the side of liberty. What I suspect is that too many people out there are too thin skinned. With regard to speech, it is a fatal character flaw for one to actually believe that one can live a life free of offense. That kind of thinking damages multicultural and multi-ethnic society. In multicultural living, people will always be exposed to offensive cultural and/or ethnic preferences. Condemning such things contributes nothing to peace. Peace is only achieved through acceptance.
Seriously, if a website offends you, don’t visit it. If a newspaper/magazine offends you, don’t read it. If a store offends you, don’t shop there. If a TV/radio program offends you, don’t listen to it. If an idiot offends you, shake the dust off your shoes and move on.