It's also unclear to me why that, in turn, is a problem. There are several fuzzy areas in American free speech law as it stands, and arguably most people are already happy to allow (and encourage) regulation in other important areas of life, from medical/food regulation to warranty regulations, to electrical safety regulations, to frequency band regulations. The 'power of the arbiter' there is almost never brought up as a problem, despite the fact that this immense power can have very real consequences.

If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too?

This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.

So you're saying that because we've already given the government too much power in areas that it was never meant to be involved we should just keep going?

In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.