Because the power would inevitably be abused to silence speech that those with power don't appreciate.
Inevitable is a strong word here, given that there are plenty of examples of societies where this by and large has not happened. Again, as I said before, I am not for the banning of hate speech as long as hate speech remains the ill defined term that it is. However, I believe that to define that term is, in fact, doable.
And vesting too much power in the government is not a good thing, lest we find ourselves unable to oppose a tyrannical regime.
See above.
We currently restrict a few very narrowly defined categories of speech; that is, we restrict speech in these categories regardless of "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Restrictions that regulate speech based on "its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content" are what I universally object to because allowing the government to police speech based on what it says is (a) wide open to abuse and (b) unethical, as people should (and do) have the right to express any opinions, even if we think those opinions are awful.
First point here is that it's wide open to abuse. I hold that it is not wide open to abuse as long as the exact types of speech banned are clearly defined, and any additions to that list are added democratically(possibly by referendum). Secondly, saying that something should remain the case because someone has the right to that isn't enough. I know that, as it stands in the US, people do have this right. I'm arguing that they shouldn't.
Moreover, I more broadly object to new categorical exceptions on speech; I think our existing set of narrowly-defined restrictions is more than adequate and doesn't meaningfully restrict what opinions and ideas people can express.
My main problem with America's current restrictions is that it allows speech that is de facto incitement to violence too much leeway. Like, if I say "All Muslims are terrorists and they threaten you every day" that is t technically calling for violence, but it can be easily interpreted this way. Of course, it should be up to a judge and jury to decide if it was REASONABLE to determine if what was said qualifies as hate speech.
That does not speak to whether this proposed new restriction on speech (in this case, "hate speech") is justifiable. It is my belief that it is not.
Because as I have pointed out, that restriction on speech is (a) categorical, not content-based, and (b) very narrowly defined (at least in the US). The way defamation is defined in US law, I do not believe it presents a meaningful restriction on the ability of people to express their ideas and opinions.
No, but it would be a step, because it's an extraordinarily bad idea. Would civilization break down overnight as a result? No. Would hate speech laws be used against people and groups who their proponents typically support, like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall St., and AntiFa? You would be incredibly naive to think they wouldn't. Moreover, you better believe that conservative Christians would use these same laws to restrict criticism and satire of Christianity.
I am all for Antifa being cracked down upon(they are vigilantes at best, and outright criminal thugs at worst), and if BLM do anything that would violate the law, then those members that do this should be punished. Same goes for Occupy Wall Street. Calling for violence against the White Race or Christians, including implicitly, should be punished like any other race; I don't see why you think I wouldn't support this. As for Christians, if the majority of people truly vote for this, well, that's a shame(I'm a Monarchist so also think that any restrictions should come with the consent of the monarch but let's not clutter up this any further because I already released one anti-Paine manifesto) but you seem to be under the misconception in general that I favor the passing of a law that says "anything that can be offensive is banned". That isn't the case; I think that banned speech should be extended to a very specific type of speech, of which critiquing a religion is not, nor is it in most European countries(remember when there was the Mohammed drawing controversy in Denmark? Denmark allowed that)
But that's assuming you want to create a categorical exception to hate speech. If you'd rather create a content-based exception to "only the bad kinds of hate speech," then you have an even more overt problem: who creates these exceptions? A bunch of rich old white men working on getting richer and older (and probably whiter if they could)? Because that's who currently holds the power, and that is traditionally who has held the power since our nation's inception. And how do we determine what speech is "good" and what speech is "bad?" Because there have been countless times in human history where the majority opinion about what was right was, in hindsight, incredibly unethical. You seem very optimistic about our current government's ability to only restrict the kinds of speech you think are bad; I am much less so. Moreover, even if I thought they could, I wouldn't, because it's not right. The proper response to bad ideas is not to hide them, it is to expose them to the light and illustrate why they are bad so that people who encounter those ideas are armed with the knowledge and wisdom to resist them.
This logic is flawed at best, frankly. Yes, the majority can be wrong. But what other basis are you going to use for determining if laws are morally justified? The at the time extremely crazy opinions of a few forward thinking radicals? That isn't very democratic. Your last argument is a common one. The kind of speech I'm proposing opposing is never used with the intent of seriously convincing anyone, of engaging in a good faith debate. It's used with the intent of rallying a crowd. It's the speech that Marat used to convince the Parisian mobs to tear women and children apart, and it is a threat to public order and, therefore, democracy.