Do we really have free speech? And when does free speech become hate speech?

Definition of free speech: 'the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.'

Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights says that we all have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, how true is this? I've always found this hard to understand, since although some people claim we have free speech, it is known that if we have a controversial opinion (e.g. Racist, homophobic etc) it can be labelled as 'hate speech' and therefore be censored. If we truly had free speech - surely this wouldn't happen. The line between free speech and hate speech is becoming incredibly fuzzy. I'd like to ask for your opinion:
Do we really have free speech? And when does free speech become hate speech?

Free speech turns into hate speech if it can harm somebody by inciting violence.

e.g if a radical 'Muslim' cleric incites violence against a group that is hate speech not free speech.

If a right wing group, e.g. EDL incites violence against Muslims, that is hate speech not free speech.

Spreading your political or religious views peacefully is free speech.

I see what you mean. However, if someone has an extremely racist and derogatory view, that they spread peacefully (through newspapers/other media) - would you regard that as hate speech? And if that view was to be censored, would you support the censorship, or would you see the act of censoring it as against the idea of free speech?

We really have free speech but lets enjoy it while it lasts. We got lil snowflakes who can't stand to hear an opinion different than theirs and start to call anyone who tries to argue with them a sexist, bigot, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic etc.
Free speech is considered hate speech when it calls for the annihilation or inciting violence against a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, or political views.

It depends on the context. Most of the time, extremely racist views often excite people to violence. Could you provide a hypothetical scenario?

Scenario: The Sun posts a controversial article, saying that 'black people are less evolved than white people, are dirty etc.' or another article that says that 'All immigrants from [particular country] are lazy scrounges/stealing benefits'

It seems this is already allowed in the UK. However, despite the distastefulness of these views and also lack of truth, they should be allowed to be published on the ground of freedom of speech.

However the press also has a responsibility to be at least truthful, and making such comments would not be so, so the articles may be objectionable because of something else.

We have the right to free speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other individuals as recognised by the Declaration of Human Rights. The laws against hate speech should be about protecting individuals, not ideologies.

There have been many examples recently of intellectuals being de-platformed because people have reacted emotionally to their work. Charles Murray is a notable example, who was de-platformed (and subjected to violence) because his groundbreaking book The Bell Curve identified IQ as being hereditary, and people object to this as an idea, whether or not it is backed by the evidence, and whether or not it is the accepted view among psychologists.

Being "de-platformed" is not an infringement on the right to free speech. Just because a certain organisation or company refuses to entertain a person's viewpoint, does not suddenly make that viewpoint illegal. The same rights granted to the person to defend their speech apply equally to the organisation no-platforming them, as such both have a right to disagree with each other.

While I can't say I always agree with debates being silenced this way, it is not an attack on our freedoms, in fact it's quite the opposite.

It's true that deplatforming isn't an infringement on a person's right to free speech, but it does in my opinion speak to a growing attitude that opinions and views can be simply shouted away, based simply on whether one dislikes them. This is not a healthy environment for society and runs contrary to the spirit of allowing ideas to have free expression. Perhaps this wouldn't be much of a problem if we were talking about people producing hate speech, but the victims here are public intellectuals. Not listening to what educated people have to say is likely a recipe for society becoming more stupid and close-minded.

I can't agree that it makes us more free (i.e., the opposite of an attack on our freedoms) - in a civil and reasonable society a person would simply not attend (or in an extreme case boycott) an event that they disagreed with, but the people who do wish to attend the event and hear what a person has to say would still be able to attend. An event would merely be unsuccessful with low attendance. When a speaker is deplatformed however, the people who wish to attend are surely having their freedom to attend restricted. This isn't a freedom that people have a right to, but a person would nevertheless be freer to have a choice of whether to attend.

This is before considering the prolific amount of insults, threats and sometimes violence perpetrated by people who protest these events, which in my opinion contributes to a larger overall stifling of public discourse.

Definition of free speech: 'the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.'

Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights says that we all have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, how true is this? I've always found this hard to understand, since although some people claim we have free speech, it is known that if we have a controversial opinion (e.g. Racist, homophobic etc) it can be labelled as 'hate speech' and therefore be censored. If we truly had free speech - surely this wouldn't happen. The line between free speech and hate speech is becoming incredibly fuzzy. I'd like to ask for your opinion:
Do we really have free speech? And when does free speech become hate speech?

There are always going to be people who refuse to listen to intellectual opinion, it's not a new phenomenon. It might have become a bit more shouty thanks to growing media coverage, but I don't think this is some sign of the end times, just an evolution of an existing problem.

Things are never going to be perfect. At the end of the day, another group could launch a counter-protest to the no-platformers if they wanted, but that almost never happens.

Insults and threatening behaviour should indeed be condemned, though in some cases the speakers being no-platformed have been just as guilty of inciting hate.