Hate speech and harassment, if either de jure or de facto legal, silence the weak and amplify the powerful.
First off, these two are not synonymous. Harassment is personal, while hate speech is directed generally. It is quite easy to distinguish between the two legally, and we do.
Secondly, I believe you have this backwards. Hate speech is generally a tool of the weak, used to get the attention of the strong, and to normalize standing with the strong.
Of course, the larger problem is defining what “hate speech” actually is, which is the primary reason why it cannot be legislated out of existence. This subject has come front and center today because we elected a President who (to say the least) is prone to hyperbolic personal attacks on people and groups. On that a strong consensus of Americans agree.
Now, take any specific utterance from said President, state categorically that it is an example of “hate speech” and watch that consensus fall apart.
So……on any attempt to “clarify” the principles of free speech legally…..count me out, for that reason.