Your comment proves the guy's point. Hate speech is subjective. There is no "blurred lines" around hate speech. All hate speech is protected speech. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

If we don't have hate speech, we necessarily don't have free speech. All speech should be allowed. Hate speech should be criticized but not banned.

I am opposed to censorship, and I disagree with your claim. This qualifies as "hate speech". It's derogatory, its directed at a specific group of people, and it can foster animosity. That the group is a political party is not material.

Every hate speech law I’ve seen has a reasonably rigorous definition of what qualifies, including what kind of groups are protected. I’ve never seen a hate speech law that protects criticism of political parties, if you have please link to it.

So is "Nazi scum", or "Braindead Republican", or "corporate sellout", or "slum lord" or, "liberal elite", or "wellfare queen", hell even "Boomer" or "hippie" or "neoliberal".

That's an extremely low bar, so low as to be utterly useless.

Dozens of millions of people have been murdered in the name of communism by communists, and I can’t call communists “bandits”?

Do you think you can be taken seriously when you say you oppose censorship?