One of the prominent characteristics of the contemporary notion of hate speech is that it is established by proclamation. Something is not shown to be hate speech, or even argued to be hate speech; it is simply deemed to be such by a party to argument. This exposes one of the inherent weakness in the whole idea of hate speech: it has no standards, or even substance behind the allegation.
Because the assertion of "hate speech," unsupported by relevant argument, is substance-free, its deployment in discourse has the effect of shifting the subject from the issue at hand to the discussants. It is means of trying to prevail tactically, when substance will not carry a position. In effect, it is a form of abdication from the validity of one's position to an attack on the character of another.
The mere allegation of "hate speech," is meant to poison rather than persuade. It is a tactic that is deployed to cover a paucity of thought, and lack of both reason and conviction. If speech truly is hateful, it should give its opponent ample substantive grounds upon which to attack it, without ever mentioning the term "hate speech." The allegation of hate speech raises suspicion that the person making it has no valid argument, or is incapable of making one.
