hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes certain specific, imminent, serious harm — such as a genuine threat that means to instill a reasonable fear on the part of the person at whom the threat is targeted that he or she is going be subject to violence.
Your source. It has to be a threat. A credible real threat. That isn’t “hate speech.” Hate speech has no legal definition. Nor should it. Your source even argued that (openly stating it does more harm than good). Threats are not “hate speech.” Nor is it free speech. It is a credible threat. Which is under a totally different legal definition.
No. He is a professional debater. A master debater if you will. Now all silliness aside, rarely does he do anything more than attack the utopian mentality of the left and debate them on their merits. Which usually results in their failure.