I agree with you on the ambiguity of “hate speech” and “offensive.” As I wrote previously:

There’s no line. The justification for outlawing particular speech is inherently subjective. For example, when aiming to protect minorities, there’s no objective standard as to which minorities qualify. The argument ultimately boils down to “because the people think it’s bad.” But what the people think is subject to change, as is who constitutes “the people.”

To Campaign for Free Speech’s credit, their write-up acknowledged the problem of defining hate speech, and straightforwardly explained that this ambiguity is why they left it to respondents to interpret. But then they shouldn’t have made it a centerpiece of their argument that the First Amendment is under threat, since it’s easily possible some respondents were thinking of things that are already illegal, like harassment.

And when you see the question showing that 79 percent incorrectly think the First Amendment protects speakers from any consequence no matter what — which is nonsensical if you think about it a bit — those respondents could have supported changes that would allow social consequences, such as criticism, which are already allowed.

Glad you liked the article.