Is so-called "hate speech" necessarily false?

Please add some details. If you leave everyone to define “hate speech” for themselves, how are you going to know how to interpret the answers?

Actually good question; we’d have to rule out the legal implications and definitions. Yes it is always false. Hate is unnatural emotion. Think, “I hate this guys big nose!” So petty and childish.

I have no idea what this question means.

I think he’s trying to say that hate speech comes from faulty syllogisms

Add.
Statistically Asians are excelled on math and science tests:
“Asians are good at math and science”
“They miniaturize things ie Walkman the first transistor radios”
“If they are holding a grudge for WWII, they might want to plant transistor bombs in all their exported electronics to USA” Big Finale: “we must stop them!”
@Nullo read the Autobiography of Malcolm X
it’s not really an auto bio. it’s collected from interviews. An auto didactic he makes amazingly bizarre leaps of logic. PS didn’t finish it so the excerpts I read may not reflect the entire book

There is always a little bit of truth in a hate speech, only what little truth there is can be twisted or certain facts can be omitted to make it seem worse than it is.

An example can be. I hate it when people are loud at night and don’t let me sleep. They are so inconsiderate. Young people today are extremely selfish.

(It can be they really aren’t that loud but I hear them because I went to bed to early, or I’m a light sleeper or noise wasn’t the only reason I remained awake. So yes, they are a contributing factor to my lack of sleep but any of the other things could be the real reason I can’t sleep. And yes, young people today can be selfish but it does not mean all are or that we were different ourselves when young. The second part of the statement although true leads one to believe that all young people are selfish and that it wasn’t the case years before. The statement is to get others to join me in resenting young people.)

At least I think this is what you were asking.

Not necessarily. You have active groups out there such as the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Skinheads, and the like spouting off their racist, ignorant, and moronic views and the message they’re trying to send could qualify as “hate speech”, in my opinion.

Hate speech as in bashing a cathegory as a whole? Yes. But then again every generalization is.
To make an example: i have met 3 equador-born guys in my whole life, and all of them were morons. Does this mean all those born in equador are morons? Saying so would be a generalization, based on a faulty premise gathered from insufficient data.
If we actually polled all of equador and had actual data that proved “All people in equador are less intelligent than average” it could be considered true, as unpleasant as it may be.

Then again the simple statement of a fact, supported by evidence, is likely not to be an expression of hate.

In reality however there is no cathegory that turns out completely homogeneous.

To make it short: If some dick says “all x are y” or even “most x are y” without sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim and said statement is of inflammatory/disrespectful nature it’s damaging IN ADDITION to being false. People say false or inaccurate things all the time, it’s when said false things bring damage to someone that the idea of hate speech becomes necessary. Same as a defamation charge only on a broader scale really.

It doesn’t matter, you still shouldn’t use it.

No, the content of the speech must not necessarily be false. But the form of communication is wrong. And the feeling of hatred is immature. There is no need to hate other people. But sometimes there’s the need to disagree with them.

Example:

X says he hates corrupt politicians and puts this into a speech. The content of the speech is true, but the form of communication is wrong.

Something can be labeled “hate speech” when it isn’t. Then the labeling itself might be seen as a form of hate speech. The original speech might be true, or at any rate not entirely false.

If you define “hate speech” as something false, your question answers itself. But it still leaves the question: if it’s false, is it necessarily hate speech?

Also, to be called false, must it be entirely false, or is it false if it contains any falsehood whatsoever?

Is intent a factor, or only effect?

This is why definitions matter. Sometimes when you finish defining your terms, the discussion is over, because the real underlying question was only this: what do these terms mean?

The question, I believe, fails to define hate speech and then asks if it is true or false. It can be either. “Hate speech” is a term that is used to limit freedom of speech on a topic or issue. By labeling speech on a topic as “hate speech”, it removes the topic from free discussion. Therefore, since the mention of the topic is a crime, the populace is restricted from speaking about it at all. Ergo, loss of freedom of speech.

In Europe now, several countries, including The Netherlands and Austria, have “hate speech” laws enacted and prosecutions are proceeding when violations are found. For instance, any public speech about Islam that is less than supportive is deemed hate speech and a person can be prosecuted and sentenced to prison for speaking in a negative manner about Islam. Ergo, loss of freedom of speech by deeming it “hate speech” and then enacting laws to punish “hate speech”.