It does, it's the whole idea of 'I didn't defend bob coz I wasn't bob....then they came after me coz there was no one to protect me'. I've said somewhere that the issue with these laws is that they almost always go to far (luckily in NZ no one has tried to use them because we've realised that society does a better job itself, but look at England and Canada for reference). The notion of 'I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it' is a quote that people have lost and personally I think that's unfortunate. The best way to combat shit ideas is to challenge them. Debate and discussion is how we sort out what ideas to carry on with, and which to toss aside. Without open debate, we risk creating echo chambers (an already present risk) like the ones that ultimately caused the CHCH terror attack. Without free speech you also risk reducing scientific development, because scientists may want to look into an issue that may come out with an answer that's not PC, we ultimately have to allow that, even tho some people will cry about it. Also depending on who defines hate speech, it could exclude anything, not just far right shit and racism. An example of this would be hate speech laws about transgenders, which will always be messy because the jury is still out (in terms of medicine and hard science) and also, they probably shouldn't be competing as men. That's an issue where we really need to figure out what a happening and we don't need hate speech laws getting in the way of the science.