you're talking like there isn't a thousand years of jurisprudence to help figure out how to respond to scenarios where speech may be harmful. and, this is the problem - you asked a media critic to discuss a legal issue. and, we're asking corporations to play the role of the judicial system. because property - as always.

fwiw, the laws in canada are not very different than the judicial precedents in the united states. it's not precise, but it's not a bad approximation. there have been some embarrassing decisions, but that is true in the united states, as well. hate speech is broadly free speech in canada, so long as nobody is in imminent harm. we also have more or less the same constitutional protections. that said, i would personally like to see the laws liberalized substantially as they provide for the possibility of abuse of power.

in order to be prosecuted for hate speech in canada, the crown needs to show:

1) that the communication was public. so, private communication isn't covered.

2) that the communication is likely to lead to a "breach of the peace". which is a generalized concept of harm.

in order for somebody to get prosecuted under that law in canada for posting things to social media, they'd have to be a public leader of some sort. a facebook or twitter post is arguably even private communication, and if you can convince a judge that it's public communication, you'd have to convince them that the person has enough influence to actually generate a crowd.

about the only person in the country that is going to care much about somebody running their mouth off on social media is the prime minister.