It seems to me a repeating pattern that once freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason, it will have unintended consequences.
Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with, regardless of whether the original implementer had good intentions.
As such I’m personally very averse to restrictions. I’ve thought about the question a fair bit – there isn’t a clear cut or obvious line to draw.
Please elaborate and motivate your answer. I’m genuinely curious about getting some fresh perspectives.
Who decides what is considered hate speech and threats of violence?
The rest of your comment indicates you’re aware of the vagueness of these terms (and existing instances of regulatory abuse).
Ideally it should be the legislature that propose these laws, and the people should vote on it via refereendum (60% supermajority is a good idea to prevent tyranny of the majority).
As for actual enforcement, an attorney of the state (“state” as in polity) would present a list of websites, news articles, video, video games, news channels, etc… to the judge of an independent judiciary, and demonstrare why they qualify as “hate spech” to be taken down, and the judge reviews it and either grants the “takedown warant” or refuses it. Then it can get appealed to higher courts if the losing side disagrees.
I’m not a lawyer, so the specfic wording of the law would need more legalase, but that’s the general concept of it.