I am interested in this idea of the “spirit of the law.” If this is a central point in the logic of your argument, it is important to preemptively address critiques that it is hard to quantify such a concept. Especially in the context of laws/legislation, it is necessary for things to be as explicit as possible, because ambiguity is often taken up in legislative bodies as room for interpretation. I have seen this happening in RI legislation about sexual harassment.

I also think it will be important to see how you define hate speech, and how narrow that definition is. Keep in mind arguments about censorship, and address concerns that hate speech can be expanded to include free speech that may be antagonistic but generative.