Hate speech is roughly defined as: a) speech motivated by hate and b) speech intended to provoke hate towards a group of people. As societies get more and more diversified, the chance of saying something that will offend someone increases, triggering either hate speech provision. The mere accusation of using hate speech is enough to tank one's career and social prospects, but there's a loophole – discussing controversial topics in the context of major literary works.
The key takeaway when it comes to hate speech prosecution is that the courts and the prosecutors want to maximize throughput of cases and minimize media coverage of the statements; careful examination might even prove them true. These two parties would ideally want hate speech to be as clear-cut as possible, using overwhelming evidence and established legal precedent to make the defendant submit, earning easy political points as protectors of public peace.
Preferably, the defendant would admit to hating a certain group or having opinions based on hate, whether or not those were expressed. At that point, the facts supporting the defendant's opinion don't matter, it only matters that he is humiliated and told to shut up. Prosecuting hate speech thus has more to do with sending an immediate feelgood message to the public and silencing free thinkers than actually finding legitimate hate speech meant to stir up trouble.
With the internet, expressing opinions that fall under either hate speech provision becomes so easy as to be near accidental. Fines and imprisonment for random words incidentally posted online are common punishments for hate speech, especially in politically correct countries. The solution is to find literary works that express politically incorrect ideas and discuss them within the context of those works.
For example, stating that women are a disloyal gender likely qualifies as hate speech but discussing Shakespeare's queen Gertrude from "Hamlet" and the ease with which she remarried allows plenty of leeway on the same topic that makes the speaker all but immune to hate speech provisions. Here's one of Gertrude's lines said to her son Hamlet, who is still mourning the death of his father:
All that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity (Act 1, Scene 2)
That line reveals her as a calculating, heartless and opportunistic woman that would lie in bed with anyone as long as it's the king and she remains the queen. It is a tacit admission that she is materialistic and has no ideals, only self-interest.
It's a thankless task to speak in absolutes when it comes to legal cases but legal protection comes in layers, one of which is using a literary work to express and discuss controversial ideas rather than positioning oneself as the originator of those ideas. Instead of railing against all women, you choose a specific example and express your opinion. In this case, Hamlet replies to queen Gertrude with a line meant to say no outward sign of grief is sufficient to show how much he misses his father:
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother (Act 1, Scene 2)
The more layers you can put between yourself and the ideas you want expressed, the better off you'll be. If you can cite the author on the topic, it's even better. Any attempts to prosecute a speaker who would want to discuss Gertrude's statement and Hamlet's reply would invite media attention, ridicule, disbelief and accusations of wasting taxpayer money. After all, it is the little guy and The Bard against the court; I know which side I'd like to be on.
The defendant in one such hate speech case could arguably find an infinite supply of literary scholars who have studied Shakespeare for decades to call as witnesses, muddying the issue and prolonging the conclusion of the court case indefinitely. What did the author actually mean by this expression? Let's invest another 10,000 hours to discuss it and find out. Hate speech is a serious matter after all, so let's get to the bottom of this together. Accusations of hate speech thus become unenforceable because for some expressions there's no conclusive explanation what the author intended to say, which is why you're discussing the author's work in the first place. Learned academics can then take over the stand to pore over millions of pages written on the matter, making the defendant unassailable.
Better yet, compilations of controversial statements and ideas can and often do get banned, as seen with the Christchurch shooter manifesto, the ownership of which the New Zealand government threatens with up to 14 years imprisonment. What is any government or regulatory body supposed to do with "Hamlet" – ban it? Burn the copies? Edit out the offending parts? Every library in the world could be counted on to have a copy of "Hamlet" alongside digital copies, meaning it's a book that's literally impossible to destroy without destroying civilization itself.
Any person attempting to censor "Hamlet" would be outing itself as a deranged megalomaniac, Streisanding the work and unifying all sensible people to start discussing it. Provoking hate speech prosecution with the help of classical literary works then becomes a sacred civic duty meant to expose tyrants holding public office positions and mobilize the general public to root them out. #HandsOffMyHamlet
The win for the defendant in one such case would be the court and/or the prosecutor getting weary of arguing nuances under intense public scrutiny and just dropping the charges. When courts and prosecutors experience that going after such defendants is a sheer waste of resources that brings them bad political karma, that works of literary giants have survived all manner of assault because they're filled with eternal truths, they will rethink their hate speech prosecution policies, at which point free speech is achieved. By then, the abusers of authority will have already exposed themselves to the general public.
All large and well-oiled systems suffer from overoptimization, meaning they start trimming and shedding all the redundant checks and balances that are meant to keep them fair. This happens because the human brain likes efficiency and constantly wants to make things faster aka. need for speed. To a layman accused of hate speech and trying to speak up only to get steamrolled by highly efficient courts and prosecutors, this efficiency seems unbeatable but it's actually self-defeating.
By cutting corners and rushing through with the cases, courts and prosecutors make many tiny mistakes that open them up to complaints and actual lawsuits. Yes, you can sue anyone, even though officials are protected by what's known as "qualified immunity", which is meant to shield them from personal liability incurred during official work; qualified immunity does not apply if the work done did not involve officially sanctioned actions, as seen with Garrett Rolfe after he shot Rayshard Brooks dead.
In conclusion, defending against accusations of hate speech is fairly simple: read masterworks of literature in search of controversial ideas, preferably in their native language if you're proficient in it, and discuss them whenever you can. You will find plenty of things were incorrectly translated, with access to original thought giving you a novel, sharp angle on the matter.
Admit to nothing, concede no ground and drag everything out as much as possible to make courts doubt the very definition of words, revealing those who abuse their discretionary power to skip over due process. Be the check and balance the court systems are meant to have, become educated and stay humble, quoting great minds when you consider their ideas deserve it.