Who gets to create the definition of 'hate speech'? You, I assume?
> ...and not because they are saying anything of substance.
Because he's not substantive to you and people who agree with you, right?
Free speech is great as long as it's within acceptable boundaries!
There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles.
I'm not entirely familiar with the US usage of the term, but that doesn't seem right to me. The pre-WW2 British Public Order Act (1936) was enacted to stop attacks by British Facists on Jews, and part of it was a ban on the "use [of] threatening and abusive words"[1]
It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles
That certainly isn't true. In many countries there are laws against it[2]
I'm a grad student at DePaul at the loop campus so I don't really follow much of what is going on with the undergrads at the main campus, but it seems to me that the administration is taking a hard stance because of people like Milo who are mostly there for shock effect and not because they are saying anything of substance. His speech was successfully protested and he wasn't invited back.