<p>The present article argues that while a speech protective regime based on the clear and present danger is suitable for political speeches, the same may prove to be counterproductive against hate speeches. Hate speech, by definition, is based on offending and insulting the intended target of the speech. The criminality of hate speech derives from its content rather than its consequences. Thus, a speech protective regime that allows interference only when there is an ‘imminent’ danger of public disorder takes away the criminality from hate speeches, undermining the dignity of the targeted groups.</p>