roachboy

but if hate speech had not been defined as incitement to violence, then it would not have amenable to restriction.

oh yeah: "i hate green people" is an example of a sentence type.
because you wrote it here, it is a speech act, but it's framed as a meta-action. framed in this way, there'd be no incitement in it--even if you were to say explicitly racist things as examples of racist things that could be said, there'd be no incitement in it (and this gets to the problem of distinguishing incitement from other types of speech---in this case, it'd be about the situation and the verb tenses)

so it's the same type of sentence, but not the same type of speech act as incitement to violence/hate speech---this is why i think the op is framed badly.

i don't think the ability to fashion a sentence is at issue here---you can fashion any sentence you want--it is the social implications of saying certain kinds of sentences---of repeating them (politics is repetition)--that is the problem.

if you strip out context, you erase the idea of incitement. how can you incite to act if there's no situation to act in or on?
it would seem to me (the post is not ordered well)
ok, again: i would seem to me that incitement involves statements in the imperative. hate speech might extent to statements that define or explain actions ("i am going to kill you because you belong to category x)---what holds them together is the move from the mechanics of the sentence to assumptions about intent.
once you start thinking about it, hate speech gets vanishingly narrow, working mostly as an ex=post-facto rationale for charging someone with first as over against second degree murder say.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite