I mostly agree with your position on free speech. I do think there is a place for us to define speech as "hate speech" -- but I feel that it's almost impossible to regulate it, even if it is designated as such. The onus is on the complainant to explain WHY someone's speech qualifies as "hate speech." And then, even if there's a consensus that it's hateful speech -- who gets to determine the consequences for the speaker?

I think a lot of it is just people across the spectrum posturing in an attempt to try to bully their rivals into self-censoring. Unfortunately for them, their motives are usually very transparent -- and most people aren't buying what they're selling.