And this can be true of any law.

I disagree. It's much harder to completely redefine a law (immigration -> censorship) then to slightly change a law (censorship -> slightly more censorship).

Why do you think it's fuzzy? Or that other restrictions on speech are less fuzzy?

Well "speech that incites imminent lawless action", or "fraud" seem much more clearly defined than "hate speech". Both depend on existing laws.

Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

• How do you judge it's intended to demean and brutalize another? Couldn't I always claim it wasn't my intention.
• At what point is it derogatory language?
• So it's hate speech if I use speech to "attack" a person on the basis of their idiotic religious belief?

"You're belief in heaven is dangerous, since it devalues this only life we know we have" = Hate speech?