RE: You can't stop fascism by becoming fascist and you can't beat hate with a ban hammer
I completely agree with the reasons you have provided.
Some ideas I want to say about that topic:
Because the definition of hate speech is not fixed, is important to set an expiry time for the regulations. You cannot fine or fire someboday for what he said ten years ago if he retracted.
Hate speech tries to reduce the freedom speech or rights of other people. I think this is required but not enough for determining what is a hate speech and what is not.
Hate speech definition should not be created neither by the offended nor by the government. Allowing private companies to ban whatever they want will give the control of the ban hammer to the lobbies and big companies, so I think this is not a good option either. I think the best option would be to let the judges to choose, supported by sociologists.
In my opinion banning words is a quite dystopian measure but I do not think it will work, new words and set phrases will be made to avoid the censorship. Censorship is a powerful tool for attacking some ideas, but it is not enough for destroying them. For changing an idea it is necessary to convince majority of the people.
People do get punished for stuff they said years ago though. When companies have control it is actually shareholders and lobbies yes.
But that is better than to have it in the hands of politicians. If fewer people choose then fewer people have more power over many people.
I think on the contrary. If fewer people choose then this people has much more power over much more people. The more cruel regimes were the most centralized ones.
I believe at separation of powers. It is quite dificult because the holders of different powers tend to collaborate, but I think it is the best we can do. Individual freedom is important too, of course.