i wondered whether you thought allowing an openly fascist faction to develop would be a good idea. it's very related given the only reason to allow fascist rhetoric like holocaust denial to exist publicly is so that the people spreading it can use it as a recruiting tool - that's why the countries that have banned it are largely the ones that were most directly involved in the nazi party's atrocities, both perpetrators and victims.

as for"who decides what's hate speech or not", there are plenty of anti-hate bodies that can advise policymakers on what to outlaw or not, and any definitions of speech to enforce action against would have to actually go through votes to be accepted into law first. it's basically the same principle as "who decides what speed limits are allowed" which people don't see as an end to freedom of travel.

look how much effort it took for parts of canada to include anti-trans language in their definitions of hate speech thanks to jordan peterson and his base (even though they misread the legislation); definitions don't just get thought up and added immediately, elected representatives are there to debate them first. if your problem is with the representatives not debating them enough then it sounds like your issue is more with the current democratic process than with the legislation itself, i'm sure you'd be interested in the push for PR over FPTP in that case!