Hate Speech Public Consultation

It does the opposite - it protects and promotes democracy.

It gives even further protection to the likes of Mr. Martin… even if he is a miserable cnut.

So. No.

rather interesting that the first example the OP thought of was:

In the end they will end up being the victims of the legislation they wanted anyway.

The fact is that most genuine racists and bigots in modern society know better than to express those views online or in public. They will find their own private little groups and express themselves there or in person. They'll be the people who already know their views are controversial and offensive so they keep their mouths shut until they feel safe.

However, the people who can't shut their mouths on social media or at work etc are always walking the tightrope. They may eventually say just one thing that's a bit iffy and their group will turn on them and use the apparatus they spent so long setting up on their own "side".

That's more or less what "cancel culture" is now. People who are mostly "on message" making a small misstep and then being absolutely hounded and destroyed by their former "comrades".

Teenage boys from Eastern Europe posting horrendously bigoted stuff behind fake accounts on Twitter and on 4Chan etc are never ever going to be held accountable. Daft Mary from your office who is always on board with every single progressive campaign accidentally letting slip that she feels uncomfortable that a former man might be using the ladies changing room at the gym? Oh they'll definitely make her pay for that.

In addition to all that, I think for a lot of people online I think the endless calling of "bigotry", "racism" and "hate speech" is borne for a genuine fear that their own past will catch up with them. That joke they made in college. That time in high school when they bullied the minority kid in class. That time they got drunk with friends and admitted they'd never sleep with a trans-person. They think if they just support the cause hard enough and relentlessly enough that they will never be found out.

People, with closets absolutely chock full of skeletons, overcompensating.

It won't work.

I didn't post it as fact - I posted it as a point that was made by the author of a letter to the editor of the Indo. I didn't say whether or not it was true - I asked a question about the topic.

And so the Overton window shrinks further, this is predictably lauded by the usual crowd who love to have their (and others) freedoms restricted.

As Noam Chomsky once said on the matter:

”The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

But as per usual this is all disregarded and anyone who disagrees even slightly is (probably) just a racist so who cares

Who defines what hate speech is?

That's the problem, it can't be defined.

Like as in someone may be found guilty of hate speech irrespective of whether hate speech actually occurred?