Selective application of laws is a sign of unjust, unfair governance. Fascist dictatorship, really, using the traditional definition of the terms.
These "hate speech" laws –– which, by the way, are nothing such, and instead are exactly intended for selective application; for arbitrary, unjust governance –– hurt me, personally.
I do not believe in defining individuals by arbitrary immutable characteristics, or treating them as representatives of their "protected group". That is, I do treat everyone I interact with as an equal by default. However, I do like examining beliefs and mores and cultures, and often assume the role of
advocatus diaboli for the sake of such examination and discussion; that is, I can easily discuss a topic as if I held a position that I do not in reality hold. For thousands of years, this has been known to be a very effective and efficient method of examination; see e.g.
Socratic method.
(Those that I interact with directly do not seem to have any problem with this. Not many agree with all or even most of my opinions, and I find that is good, because it presents opportunities for me to learn and grow. It is those who overhear that seem to delight in attacking me. For example, during a single day, at a Finnish University, I've been called both a "dirty commie" and a "far-right elitist exploiter". I admit that I took weird joy at "the world's only socialist CEO" label, though.)
I am no longer allowed to examine or discuss why certain groups in Finland have 17-fold likelihood of committing sexual crimes than the national average, because such examination is now considered incitement against a "protected group", and is hate speech,
unless I myself am perceived as a member of that group. Thing is, the probable underlying causes for that are completely incidental to them
also being part of that "protected group"; that is, the reasons have very little to do with that protected group! It is like labeling the discussion about female serial killers, misogynist: against all women.
And this indeed is one of the intended effects of these laws: the end of discussion on negative effects of political decisions.
The public will just have to bear the practical effects in silence. Which is very nice for the politicians: no embarrassments or having to admit making any errors anymore! Nice! At least in Finland, the "reporters" have already stated publicly that they "do not want to report bad things done by good people", so the "most free media in the world" is already towing the line nicely.
This is not healthy. The lack of discussion will polarize those who feel the society is ignoring or suppressing them. This will happen on all sides. The arbitrary application of these speech-restricting laws will just turbocharge that. The end result is violent chaos.
Me, I prefer the uncomfortableness of words and concepts to actual physical violence. Apparently, I'm in the small minority at least here in Finland, especially when looking at the court decisions. (You are likely to get bigger fines from bad words than punching someone in the gut.)