I found Steven Crowder's arguments here to really challenge my thoughts on what is free speech and what is hate speech. Give that a watch if you have the time.
The problem here is that "hate speech" is an anglosphere term and doesn't have an exact correspondence in German law.
What is commonly called "hate speech" in the English-language media is §130 (1) of the penal code (part of the set of "Volksverhetzung" offenses). It's a poor fit because:
* The law can in principle apply to any identifiable subgroup of the population or any individual as a member of such a subgroup. Subgroups defined by their ethnic characteristics or religious beliefs are listed as examples, but the list is not exhaustive (though of course the group of Bavarian vintage car collectors is unlikely to be a target).
* It's not related to the motives of the speakers. It's about the effects the speech creates, specifically threats against the public peace, such as incitement to and encouragement of violence (unlike in America, incitement of lawless action need not be imminent) or creating an atmosphere through slander where members of a subgroup have reason to not feel safe anymore. If you want an example or why, look up what Julius Streicher was convicted of in Nuremberg and how it contributed to the Holocaust.
The video seems to make the point that there isn't a satisfying legal definition of hate speech (I haven't watched the whole thing).
As a counterpoint, imagine you are a minority (if you are not already a minority), and further imagine that someone uses speech that has, in the past, been used to incite violence; or speech that is similar (dog-whistle) to that which incites violence.
Inciting violence is already illegal. Additionally, some protected classes are ideas (religion, usually implemented as being a member of a major religion) rather than intrinsic values (which I believe do deserve some degree of protection).
The protection of religion comes from sectarian violence, but this is better covered by other laws, and disliking a particular spiritual belief is no different from disliking any other belief.
You're free to call me a taig and papist, show Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the pope, or exhibit Serrano's 'Piss Christ'. I'm free to laugh, realise that O'Connor was making an incredibly accurate complaint about the church's abuses, and pay for tickets (Serrano's an excellent photographer, I've not seen his sculpture first hand) accordingly.
I found Steven Crowder's arguments here to really challenge my thoughts on what is free speech and what is hate speech. Give that a watch if you have the time.