Should the ideology of hatred be considered freedom of speech? Is there a line that can be drawn? And who decides where the line is drawn? ?

  No, it definitely should NOT.  In 1907, it was claimed Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That absurdity  led directly to the deaths of millions, the suffering of millions more, & the destruction or theft of their belongings in the Russian Revolution & its aftermath, in Italy under Mussolini, in Germany & most of Europe under Hitler, in Spain under Franco, etc.  The corresponding "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is disproved daily in the lynchings & beatings of minority groups.    

  No CIVIL society can long endure the generalisation of hatred, bigotry, racism. sexism, defamation & lies.  We overcome such baseness in the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.  It's S. 1 guarantees its rights & freedoms "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be determined in a free & democratic society."  It acknowledges that no right or freedom can be absolute.

Where deemed necessary, legislatures create limits.  These are proposed, debated & enacted as laws by a majority of that body.  If anyone challenges a limit, it's then ruled on by a court, up to & including the Supreme Court of Canada.  Courts have already ruled such limits must be the absolute minimum necessary to effect their purpose, & have established an "Oakes Test" to measure the limit.

  Thus, Canada has Criminal Code offenses such as "Spreading False News" (S. 181), "Defamatory Libel" (S. 300), "Advocating Genocide" (S. 318.(1)), "Public Incitement of Hatred" (S.319.(1)) & "Wilful Promotion of Hatred" (S.319.(2)) that would have found the U.S. Orange Fraud in prison & fined had he entertained such "freedom of speech" in our country.  If such laws existed in the U.S., that may have prevented the 6 Jan. 2021 events.    

  People in the U.S. are far too busy patting themselves on the back over their 232-year old constitution to recognise or admit the numerous ways in which it's not adequate, & is even obsolete for dealing with the pace of contemporary society.    

You either have freedom of speech or you don’t, there is NO in between. You’re very lucky to have it in the US, we don’t have it in Europe. Think very carefully before you give up any of your rights.

A good question that many pundits are currently asking, too. Idk what the answer is either, but I believe just getting rid of DT will be a big improvement. Think back 4 yrs-- we didn't have this constant mantra of "fake news" and ppl generally accepted the media was unbiased. It was T**** who manipulated ppl into believing there was no such thing as journalistic integrity. It's an industry with high standards and a long-standing tradition of neutrality, but DT totally jaded ppl's POV. Hitler did the same, except he didn't stop at just discrediting them-- he destroyed newspapers & murdered journalists who criticized him in the press. 

Whom do you believe should determine what is acceptable hatred and what is not? What if I hate you for your lies? What if I simply believe your truth is full of lies? Or, what if it turns out I am the one who believes a lie? Who gets to judge between us -- your friends or mine? What if you and I agree, but someone else hates us both for our perspective?

Many people have under-developed discernment. How will you address that pandemic?

You have a right to your emotions, that's free speech. The Supreme Court rules on it. They said that the klan had a right to march through Skokie Illinois in 1977.

LOL freedom of speech is merely an illusion