If someone was to come up to me and ask that question, I’d have to say with a heavy heart, no. Hate speech as a term is very subjective, because it depends on the listener, that’s usually the reasons why countries don’t ban it.

“Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.” -Wikipedia

In my opinion, hate speech would be a speech about anti-semitisim, anti-transgender rights, anti-womens rights, anti-LGBTQ rights, and much more. But for someone, like Posy Parker for example, a transgender rights rally would be a form of hate speech because she is a “real” (known by any non-bigoted person as biological and cisgender) womens rights activists, and is very anti-transgender.

So should hate speech be banned? If it was to banned, then it would mean the disicion on what is classified as hate speech is up to the governments, therefore, the way it is now days is much better because as people we can protest hate speakers. For example (I’ll use Posy Parker again), when Posy Parker wanted to come to New Zealand, she was protested by thousands of counter-protesters rallying for transgender rights.

“In a Twitter broadcast, Keen-Minshull - who is also known as Posie Parker - told her Kiwi supporters she “will come back”. The message comes a week on from her aborted two-event New Zealand tour, canned after her planned speech about women’s rights in Auckland’s Albert Park was cancelled amid scuffles.”- The New Zealand Herald

So I think since hate speech is such a subjective term, it should be up to the public to protest and drive away people that are seen as spreaders of hate. That way its the discision of the listeners, not the government.